Lindzen Deconstructs Climate Change Propaganda

This was edited down from the original 40 mins.
The original presentation makes use of many charts and examples which were not shown on camera.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Lindzen
• Climate
• Change
• Sensitivity
• CO2
• Carbon
• Science
• Alarmist
• Skeptic
• Propaganda
• Sophistry
• Models

[indulgant]

not quite the intellectual argument I was expecting from someone with his credentials

[St37One]

@indulgant

what exactly where you expecting?

how did this fall short?

BTW. I have edidted 80% of the material out of this presentation.

[aerobique]

every climate scientist destroys lindzen

it would only take -1- of these "skeptical scientist" to disprove the basic facts of climate science- he/she would get a nobel prize at once. But that is not what "skeptics" are up to...or even able...Most of the "sceptics" sold their soul to the devil to make some bucks with convenient lies and suggestions that people like to hear.

[St37One]

@aerobique

Which "basic facts of climate science" are you refering to?

[verstwo2]

It is one thing to say that anamorphic climate change is not conclusively proven and quite another to say that it is conclusively dis-proven. Lindzen is saying the former while many, if not most will take this video to mean the latter.

And I don't like what he's saying because mush of it is unsupported in the context of this video . For example, the connection between increasing temperature and melting ice I think is obvious yet he claims there is no connection.

[St37One]

The basic idea is that climate is no less stable now than it normally is.

The evidence of increasing instability (or "change") is both cherry picked, and presented in a vacuum to be highly misleading.

You yourself misrepresent the argument as being about how likely AGW is.

If that were the argument, then Lindzen would be on the "Alarmist" side 100%.

But that is not what the argument is actually about. It is about alarm, tipping points, and the reliability of climate models and forecasts.

[TheLogicJunkie]

It's not science at all -- it's a narcissistic kind of quasi-science that lacks any real commitment to rigor, exactitude, or objectivity. It's primarily concerned with achieving an illusion of religionistic fervor and eco-grandiosity.

[FantasticBob7000]

@aerobique That's right, "we people" are remotely controlled by evil masterminds like Lindzen. You're a genius, you should get the nobel prize.

[aerobique]

@FantasticBob7000

buut.. but.. but..

obama.. or gore.. huh? are NOT climate scientist that i was talking about

DAMN are you people dumb(!) and remote controlled

[FantasticBob7000]

@aerobique @aerobique ha ha ha Nobel prizes don't go to great people they go to guys like Al Gore and Obama for waging "peace" (they're both war criminals).

[aerobique]

@St37One

Climate change is happening now, is caused by people and will have catastrophic consequences.

Those three assertions are backed by the most rigorous scientific undertaking in history.

[judomagyar]

@verstwo2

NOAA climate services

climatedotgov/dashboard/chart?­chart=tempChange&beginYr=1938&­endYr=2010

They have a this graph showing the global mean temperature fore the last few decades.

If you fit a line on the last 8 years, you get a someone negative slope. Let's just call it flat.

Just because a portion of a graph has high values, does not mean the trend is in the direction of growing even higher.

In some years we will clearly see some lower mean temperatures.

[verstwo2]

@judomagyar - argument from authority?

"there has been no warming for ten years; "

- Where do you gleam that gem from? the past 10 years hold the 3 hottest years on record..during an el nina event and other cooling factors. How do you explain this if not AGW? There is no other explanation. Why are the ice caps melting if not due to increase in temps?

One satellite says the feedback is minor, yet dozens say the earth is warming...please explain why.