At this point the debate about global warming is a deadend. New evidence shows Global heating is now occurring at an accelerated rate and that the feedback effects started already were hidden behind the Global Dimming counter process which is now being overtaken by the Global heating feedbacks.
Lindzen is using his credibility up at lightening speed. He makes claims with no evidence other than his own words. Not only that he can't produce any work that supports his own claims.
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC.
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
For a comprehensive, detailed, worldwide listing, search: "Scientific opinion on climate change"
WHAT COOLING? April & May = 2nd WARMEST in the UAH 32 year satellite record. March = HOTTEST March in UAH records of Global Temperatures. (UAH - Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville is run by Dr. John Christy, well known AGW skeptic) Global Temps. for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years. Global Temps. for January = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years. Temperatures are rising "0.14C/decade" - UAH 2010 is on track to be the HOTTEST year on record since 1880. So much for global cooling. LOL!!!
@goog2k This exchange took place a few months ago Spot the mistake Oop's goog2k (2 hrs ago) Solar is rapidly becoming more efficient and cost effective. In five years it's predicted solar will be price competitive with coal fired plants, However, we need to build the smart power grid goog2k (2 hrs ago) Excellent point Nightversionn. The deniers are KILLING America's chance to lead the new Green Energy revolution. Whoever leads Green Energy will be the leader of the world's future economy. JEEZ
@blorgensteen There are many causes of global temperature change.
GHG, Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, El Nino & ocean circulation, and most important, changes in Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
ONLY GHG has had any major effect in the last 35 years. Global temps. have spiked +0.55C with NO INCREASE in solar irradiance. In fact, TSI is at a 35 year low.
BTW, El Nino events have also strengthened 60% in the last 50 years due to global warming. Why?
You're right, 35 years is a huge number, especially when compared to the over 3 - 4 billion years life has been on Earth.
Oh, the LAST 35 years... Yeah, same notation.
Earth has been a lot warmer, or have you never heard of the Carboniferous Period? You know, when Earth was a tropical paradise with palm trees in the artic, a higher than present O2 level in the atmosphere, dragonflies with wingspans approaching 3 feet, and 7 foot long millipedes.
maybe one day we'll find that petrified SUV driven by a T-rex that would make your dreams about fossil fuels being the cause of all climate change come true.
You're right, Dummy!! All the temperature figures are faked, and the WeatherChannel, NASA, NOAA, MIT, Univ.of California, Harvard, Cambridge, the American Geophysical Union, The Royal Society, Union of Concerned Scientists are all part of the conspiracy.
Except no one told the disappearing arctic ice, melting mountain glaciers, early springs, and the plants, animals, and insects migrating north.
WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON MDT TODAY.
A WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON MDT TODAY.
* SUMMARY AND TIMING...HEAVY SNOW ACCUMULATED DOWN TO AROUND 7000 FEET YESTERDAY...AND 10 TO 15 INCHES HAS FALLEN ABOVE 7500 FEET. LIGHT TO MODERATE SNOW WILL CONTINUE THROUGH AROUND NOON TODAY. ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATIONS OF 2 TO 3 INCHES ARE EXPECTED ABOVE 7000 FEET AND AN ADDITIONAL 3 TO 5 INCHES OF SNOW ARE EXPECTED ABOVE 8000 FEET
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earths Climate (January 12, 7:34 AM Examiner Dianna Cotter)
Dr. Zagoni explains: Since the Earths atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.
mini: I do read the science. Have you? How much of an education does one have in order to write like you do? You come across as someone who wouldn't know how to turn the washroom lights on in a university, let alone attend! Give it a rest goof! If you have some supporting documentation in the form of a scientific research article, then please make it available, otherwise, go feed your goat.
mini: I like your rhetoric. If he is not tied to Big Oil, then I stand corrected. If he is, then it is no different than what occured 20 years ago with Big Tobacco paying docs off to agree that smoking did not cause lung cancer. In the end, the science will prevail. Perhaps Lindzen is correct on some points? Perhaps he is waiting for more evidence. Fine. I will side with the science not the politics.
mini: You are retarded. Tell me about research you dope. I have lied? About what? How about you try to finish high school first before you start chirping about science without the faintest notion.
mini: What are you so proud about, having "caught" me? Do you have a wee bit too much time on your hands? Perhaps instead of wasting your time on YT, you might actually read the scientific literature, the source, unless of course, you do not possess the level of education required to comprehend it?
osprey - your childish insults are so typical of you evil hypocriutical global warming alarmists.
You are too stupid to read any of the science yourself - so instead you get it from journalists and then just parrot stupid insults at anyone who has read the science.
Here's a trap for you: name me a single sataset anywhere that provides evidence of man-made global warming.
I'm proud to have named you for the evil lying hypocrite you are.
You global warming alarmists have been getting away with murder for too long.
The tide is turning as all over the world - especially in countries like the UK where we have been force-fed this chicken-shit propaganda for the last 10 years - more and more voters are realising it's time to abandon stupid pointless bankrupting climate policies.
mini: You are a deluded uneducated idiot! Get a life and get an education instead of making a total fool of yourself. Do you really think that the wolrd is listening to some imbecile like you, totally off his rocker, make claims that he cannot even find sources to support?
osprey you iiar and hypocrite! You know full well that my climate rationalism is based upon many hundreds of scientific studies in the peer reviewed literature which between them demolish the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming in the twenty first century.
mini: When you make the correct statement: "he scientific method does not depend upon who finds, but whether the findings are replicable by independent studies.", what exactly is your point? The scientific method is what grade 6 kids are taught, and? Tell me what on Earth this statement has to the understanding of climate science (a wee bit more complex that where left last attended school, no doubt).
osprey - how thick are you? You can't even follow a simple argument. Let me repeat it for you again, and this time take your foot out of your mouth and listen and take notes, you retard.
The point that we climate rationalists make again and again is that you climate alarmists constantly rely on vague statements to the effect that [always unspecified] scietntists agree with some sort of [always vague] consensus.
Those statements have nothing to do with the scientific method. QED.
Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.
Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.does that work for you?
Not if his research backs his views. Or if his views had been formed before having any ties to big oil. Just because he may be tied to big oil doesn't mean what he says is wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Exxon Mobil is "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US." Richard S. Lindzen. Now Rick, it sounds to me like you are in bed with the Big Oil companies.....say it ain't so...
That is a lie, taxes on oil limit net revenues and there is no such thing economics of scale. Consumers consumer less oil because of an artificial price hike that the Oil companies you dumbass never see.
Oil companies aren't making big profits and haven't had any good time in America since the 80's when gas prices were low due to no inflation.
In reality gas prices and oil prices are the same as they were 120 years ago. The value of the dollar has gone done thats all.
No it doesn't. If you're suggesting all that taxes do is decrease demand then all an oil company will do is cut back on production, and make more on the margin because of a higher price. That's how you make money in smaller market with higher prices.
Further on, I don't see demand going down at the same rate as the price go up. Oil fuels to wheels of so much of the economy, people will cut back on other things instead.
Not big profits?You're uneducated, just google "Exxon Mobil record profits"
What taxes does do is increase the cost of entry and monopolize the market with big players.
I'm not in favor of taxes, I'm just telling you who it will help, it will help those that the crazy left want to fight the most.
As far as the price of oil being the same for the past 120 years. No, it's not. But I would say that the gold/oil relation speaks about the oil prices going to 200 by early 2010 or at least summer of 2010.
Further, economics of scale is a segment of economics....
@deltapunk21 The oil industry is fairly efficient. Averaging around 7% profit. If you tax something heavily, then the 7% is from a larger pie. If an industry is $100B a year, then 7% is 7 Billion. If an industry is $250B a year, then it is 17.5B a year.
In this clip Lindzen describes three colleagues whose work he respects. One has refuted the link between tropical cyclones and warming; the second, sea-level alarmism; a third, AGW-induced abrupt change. Yet all maintain a public face that smiles generally on AGW. This stance reduces friction and lubricates career advancement.
This has been flagged as spam show
Lindzen's opening remarks alone show just how balanced and truly 'scientific' he is.
A few weeks ago, I (NOT scientically trained) was attacked in a shop for daring to question the AGW thesis. He 'believed'. I doubted.
His (snide) response was 'Are YOU a Scientist, then ?'.
He would NOT have asked that if I AGREED with Al Gore (and his good self).
Such is the logic of many of the Alarmists.
I put him onto Lindzen right away.........................
marvinc999 1 year ago
At this point the debate about global warming is a deadend. New evidence shows Global heating is now occurring at an accelerated rate and that the feedback effects started already were hidden behind the Global Dimming counter process which is now being overtaken by the Global heating feedbacks.
smacdon 1 year ago
Many of the researchers expressing doubts about the science of global warming have financial ties to the oil, auto, electricity and coal industries.
smacdon 1 year ago
you have to say, he doesn't sound like the smartest fella in the world does he..? :-)
tdavies456 1 year ago
Lindzen is using his credibility up at lightening speed. He makes claims with no evidence other than his own words. Not only that he can't produce any work that supports his own claims.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
I think it's kinda funny that he criticizes scientists that are skeptical, but don't jump on the denial bandwagon.
There's a reason for that, and it isn't because saying "I believe in global warming" is a magic ticket to career promotion.
This is sounding like the evolution 'debate' all over again.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
Anthroprogenic Global Warming is a scam. Follow the money. Every proposal to deal with this fictional problem involves massive wealth redistribution
arthur1920 1 year ago
National Academy of Sciences:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the IPCC.
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
For a comprehensive, detailed, worldwide listing, search: "Scientific opinion on climate change"
goog2k 1 year ago
We make over 90 million tons CO2 each DAY.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.
CO2 levels are 37% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 and H+ ion is up over 25%
In 25 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming plankton and corals.
They make the base of the ocean's food chain
Search: Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
junkscience com
ouluvme2 1 year ago
goog2k 1 year ago
Dayversion 1 year ago
@goog2k that's why they've changed it to Climate Change!
ouluvme2 1 year ago
@goog2k
You want to know what's driving "climate change"?
Look up into the sky on a clear day.
It's yellow, 93 million miles away, and runs on gravity driven hydrogen fusion.
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@blorgensteen There are many causes of global temperature change.
GHG, Solar Irradiance, Volcanoes, El Nino & ocean circulation, and most important, changes in Earth's orbit & axis perturbations.
ONLY GHG has had any major effect in the last 35 years. Global temps. have spiked +0.55C with NO INCREASE in solar irradiance. In fact, TSI is at a 35 year low.
BTW, El Nino events have also strengthened 60% in the last 50 years due to global warming. Why?
Duhh??
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
You're right, 35 years is a huge number, especially when compared to the over 3 - 4 billion years life has been on Earth.
Oh, the LAST 35 years... Yeah, same notation.
Earth has been a lot warmer, or have you never heard of the Carboniferous Period? You know, when Earth was a tropical paradise with palm trees in the artic, a higher than present O2 level in the atmosphere, dragonflies with wingspans approaching 3 feet, and 7 foot long millipedes.
No SUV's there I'm afraid.
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@goog2k still waiting for your reply
35 yr vs 3 billion +
guess the math isn't going your way, is it?
wonder what warmed the earth up then? hmmmm
maybe one day we'll find that petrified SUV driven by a T-rex that would make your dreams about fossil fuels being the cause of all climate change come true.
blorgensteen 1 year ago
Comment removed
goog2k 1 year ago
You're right, Dummy!! All the temperature figures are faked, and the WeatherChannel, NASA, NOAA, MIT, Univ.of California, Harvard, Cambridge, the American Geophysical Union, The Royal Society, Union of Concerned Scientists are all part of the conspiracy.
Except no one told the disappearing arctic ice, melting mountain glaciers, early springs, and the plants, animals, and insects migrating north.
LOL!!!
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
goog2k 1 year ago
Excuse me Atmospheric Physicist.
metal28655 1 year ago
This guys a Atmospheric Scientist.
metal28655 1 year ago
222 AM MDT SUN JUN 13 2010
WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON MDT TODAY.
A WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON MDT TODAY.
* SUMMARY AND TIMING...HEAVY SNOW ACCUMULATED DOWN TO AROUND 7000 FEET YESTERDAY...AND 10 TO 15 INCHES HAS FALLEN ABOVE 7500 FEET. LIGHT TO MODERATE SNOW WILL CONTINUE THROUGH AROUND NOON TODAY. ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATIONS OF 2 TO 3 INCHES ARE EXPECTED ABOVE 7000 FEET AND AN ADDITIONAL 3 TO 5 INCHES OF SNOW ARE EXPECTED ABOVE 8000 FEET
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
Scientists 'forced march' on AGW.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earths Climate (January 12, 7:34 AM Examiner Dianna Cotter)
Dr. Zagoni explains: Since the Earths atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
judomagyar 2 years ago
Dr. Zagoni explains:
Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.
judomagyar 2 years ago 3
Terrific new NASA YouTube:
Our Earth has a FEVER! - the Climate Change puzzle
/watch?v=XzfRs74b-qw
For excellent data & scientific info. on Climate Change search:
1) Climate Change: Key indicators
2) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth (These are the BEST sites)
3) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT
-- and for some other great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610
& potholer54 channels.
goog2k 2 years ago
@goog2k Nasa is funded by the government, the government wants to tax energy. Please pull your head out of Al Gores ass.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mini: I do read the science. Have you? How much of an education does one have in order to write like you do? You come across as someone who wouldn't know how to turn the washroom lights on in a university, let alone attend! Give it a rest goof! If you have some supporting documentation in the form of a scientific research article, then please make it available, otherwise, go feed your goat.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
My understanding is that Lindzen has been payrolled by Big Oil. Might that not sway his views somewhat?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
osprey you are one of those typical toxic alarmists who will tell any lies so as to try to discredit scientists who disagree with the alarmism.
Shame on you!
Might not the much much MUCH MUCH greater funding (from governments) sway the alarmists to tell their lies?
Shame on you!
minilemur 2 years ago
mini: I like your rhetoric. If he is not tied to Big Oil, then I stand corrected. If he is, then it is no different than what occured 20 years ago with Big Tobacco paying docs off to agree that smoking did not cause lung cancer. In the end, the science will prevail. Perhaps Lindzen is correct on some points? Perhaps he is waiting for more evidence. Fine. I will side with the science not the politics.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
osprey - you lying hyaena. I've caught you out.
You pretend to be reasonable after having tried like some evil worm to undermine the character of a scientist who disagrees with your religious views.
Shame on you, you idiot!
he scientific method does not depend upon who finds, but whether the findings are replicable by independent studies.
You can hardly be unaware, that the alarmist scientists have refused to reveal their datasets for objective scrutiny and verification.
minilemur 2 years ago
mini: You are retarded. Tell me about research you dope. I have lied? About what? How about you try to finish high school first before you start chirping about science without the faintest notion.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
mini: What are you so proud about, having "caught" me? Do you have a wee bit too much time on your hands? Perhaps instead of wasting your time on YT, you might actually read the scientific literature, the source, unless of course, you do not possess the level of education required to comprehend it?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
osprey - your childish insults are so typical of you evil hypocriutical global warming alarmists.
You are too stupid to read any of the science yourself - so instead you get it from journalists and then just parrot stupid insults at anyone who has read the science.
Here's a trap for you: name me a single sataset anywhere that provides evidence of man-made global warming.
minilemur 2 years ago
Comment removed
ospreylookout 2 years ago
I'm proud to have named you for the evil lying hypocrite you are.
You global warming alarmists have been getting away with murder for too long.
The tide is turning as all over the world - especially in countries like the UK where we have been force-fed this chicken-shit propaganda for the last 10 years - more and more voters are realising it's time to abandon stupid pointless bankrupting climate policies.
minilemur 2 years ago
mini: You are a deluded uneducated idiot! Get a life and get an education instead of making a total fool of yourself. Do you really think that the wolrd is listening to some imbecile like you, totally off his rocker, make claims that he cannot even find sources to support?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
osprey you iiar and hypocrite! You know full well that my climate rationalism is based upon many hundreds of scientific studies in the peer reviewed literature which between them demolish the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming in the twenty first century.
minilemur 2 years ago
mini: When you make the correct statement: "he scientific method does not depend upon who finds, but whether the findings are replicable by independent studies.", what exactly is your point? The scientific method is what grade 6 kids are taught, and? Tell me what on Earth this statement has to the understanding of climate science (a wee bit more complex that where left last attended school, no doubt).
ospreylookout 2 years ago
osprey - how thick are you? You can't even follow a simple argument. Let me repeat it for you again, and this time take your foot out of your mouth and listen and take notes, you retard.
The point that we climate rationalists make again and again is that you climate alarmists constantly rely on vague statements to the effect that [always unspecified] scietntists agree with some sort of [always vague] consensus.
Those statements have nothing to do with the scientific method. QED.
minilemur 2 years ago
@minilemur Snap!!!! ;)
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.
davetileguy 2 years ago
``all observers will agree on the outcome.''
In this case provided their funding is not in jeopardy.
nesNYC 2 years ago
The polar bears are melting and the oceans are drowning.....
JAIJAI0 1 year ago 13
Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.does that work for you?
davetileguy 2 years ago
Not if his research backs his views. Or if his views had been formed before having any ties to big oil. Just because he may be tied to big oil doesn't mean what he says is wrong.
frickface1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Exxon Mobil is "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US." Richard S. Lindzen. Now Rick, it sounds to me like you are in bed with the Big Oil companies.....say it ain't so...
ospreylookout 2 years ago
The oil companies are helped by taxes on oil, because of economics of scale. Higher prices means more profits.
Visfen 2 years ago
That is a lie, taxes on oil limit net revenues and there is no such thing economics of scale. Consumers consumer less oil because of an artificial price hike that the Oil companies you dumbass never see.
Oil companies aren't making big profits and haven't had any good time in America since the 80's when gas prices were low due to no inflation.
In reality gas prices and oil prices are the same as they were 120 years ago. The value of the dollar has gone done thats all.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
No it doesn't. If you're suggesting all that taxes do is decrease demand then all an oil company will do is cut back on production, and make more on the margin because of a higher price. That's how you make money in smaller market with higher prices.
Further on, I don't see demand going down at the same rate as the price go up. Oil fuels to wheels of so much of the economy, people will cut back on other things instead.
Not big profits?You're uneducated, just google "Exxon Mobil record profits"
Visfen 2 years ago
What taxes does do is increase the cost of entry and monopolize the market with big players.
I'm not in favor of taxes, I'm just telling you who it will help, it will help those that the crazy left want to fight the most.
As far as the price of oil being the same for the past 120 years. No, it's not. But I would say that the gold/oil relation speaks about the oil prices going to 200 by early 2010 or at least summer of 2010.
Further, economics of scale is a segment of economics....
Visfen 2 years ago
@deltapunk21 The oil industry is fairly efficient. Averaging around 7% profit. If you tax something heavily, then the 7% is from a larger pie. If an industry is $100B a year, then 7% is 7 Billion. If an industry is $250B a year, then it is 17.5B a year.
Brantoc 2 years ago
In this clip Lindzen describes three colleagues whose work he respects. One has refuted the link between tropical cyclones and warming; the second, sea-level alarmism; a third, AGW-induced abrupt change. Yet all maintain a public face that smiles generally on AGW. This stance reduces friction and lubricates career advancement.
MickCPitlick 2 years ago
Its because the statists control science and instead of it being left to free market and freedom its left to nuts and people with agendas.
deltapunk21 2 years ago