Is this the end of the "consensus?"

[longview]

Nah, what continues to erode is your evidence.



Richard Lindzen works for the oil industry and OPEC. He also testifed for the tobacco companies before congress that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. LOL

Apparently, Lindzen is quite the joke among his peers....

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch


Oh my, Lindzen is a tax evader, too.



Hey Jack, can I interest you in buying some ocean front property in Arizona? :lamo

I have to wonder if any of you open minded liberals actually read Lindzen's article?
I did, he brings up some very valid points, and uses the the data record to back it up.
Can someone attack the Science not the Scientist.

 

[Moot]

I have to wonder if any of you open minded liberals actually read Lindzen's article?
I did, he brings up some very valid points, and uses the the data record to back it up.
Can someone attack the Science not the Scientist.

His data is weak at best and biased at worst. Really, I wonder any of you conservatives actually understand what science really is.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nah, what continues to erode is your evidence.



Richard Lindzen works for the oil industry and OPEC. He also testifed for the tobacco companies before congress that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. LOL

Apparently, Lindzen is quite the joke among his peers....

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch


Oh my, Lindzen is a tax evader, too.



Hey Jack, can I interest you in buying some ocean front property in Arizona? :lamo

Every now and then you should try to escape from the warmist information-free zone.

Richard Lindzen
Physicist


Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wikipedia

Born: February 8, 1940 (age 73), Webster, MA

Education: Harvard University

Books: Dynamics in atmospheric physics

Richard S. Lindzen
Born	8 February 1940 (age 73) Webster, Massachusetts
Residence	United States
Nationality	American
Fields	Atmospheric physics
Institutions	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alma mater	Harvard University
Thesis	Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics (1965)
Doctoral advisor	Richard M. Goody
Notable students	Siu-shung Hong, John Boyd, Edwin K. Schneider, Jeffrey M. Forbes, Ka-Kit Tung, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, Christopher Snyder, Gerard Roe
Known for	Dynamic Meteorology, Atmospheric tides, Ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial oscillation, Iris hypothesis
Notable awards	NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967), AMS Meisinger Award (1968), AGU Macelwane Award (1969), Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970), AMS Charney Award (1985), Member of the NAS

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[SUP][1][/SUP] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic concerning catastrophic global warming[SUP][2][/SUP] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism.[SUP][3][/SUP]
eace

 

[Jack Hays]

For your reading pleasure . . .

[h=2]Fyfe,Gillett, Zwiers: “Over estimate in warming”[/h] 29 August, 2013 (14:26) | Data Comparisons | By: lucia
Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers have published an “Opinion/Comment” titled “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models”. The paper discusses precisely what we’ve been discussing here at The Blackboard lo these many years: That is, the observed trends are falling outside the range of model runs.
Read more »


eace

 

[NoC_T]

The naysayers will deny any significant impact, even as they're commuting to work in canoes. That's how it goes with them. They can't be reasoned with. Only stopped.

 

[code1211]

lol

World Federation of Scientists (Permanent Monitoring Panel – Climatology) weirdness – Stoat

This group is associated with CERN that is pretty much the Gold Standard of scientific research. Certainly more-so than NASA which has committed itself to being a big eyed weather girl performing Muslim Outreach.

How to Join

<snip>
Return this form to:

World Federation of Scientists
CERN - LAA Experiment
Building #29
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
<snip>

 

[code1211]

And so the orthodox warmists, feeling threatened, resort immediately to the tell tale ad hominem.eace

Even the least amount of digging shows that to join, you send your application to the CERN Labs.

Obviously a bunch of political hacks running this swindle!

 

[code1211]

Yeah. The double whammy of a WUWT post and the authorship of Monckton made me suspect that the World Federation of Scientists was a bit of an odd duck.

But I guess bozos who don't know the difference between the AAAS, the Royal Society, and the World Federation of Scientists will spam this on multiple message boards and threads.

Or those who don't know anything about CERN. Have you got a mirror?

 

[code1211]

I made no assertion. I only asked a question. Your insecurity is showing.eace

It's funny, isn't it, that any indication that the dogma is being undermined is met by immediate attack and accusation?

They don't even bother to find out what the organization is or who is a part of it or what its general positions have been.

They oppose the holy word and therefore must die.

 

[Threegoofs]

Even the least amount of digging shows that to join, you send your application to the CERN Labs.

Obviously a bunch of political hacks running this swindle!

So you're standard for how reputable an organization is is based upon their mailing address?

Thats classic.

 

[Threegoofs]

Or those who don't know anything about CERN. Have you got a mirror?

So you can tell us what the connection is with the WFS and CERN is? Or did you not bother to look into it?

 

[code1211]

(SIGH) Another "opinion piece" published in a scientific journal.

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

He starts by attacking most proponents of global warming as "mediocre scientists," all seeking grant money by using "alarmist tactics." Then while your blogsite source states "he begins by discussing key aspects of global warming models" here is the "discussion."

Climate science is, of course, a huge topic, but here I would like to focus on one matter: the very notion of the globally and annually averaged temperature anomaly (that is, departure from a reference value or long-term average) as a unique metric of climate.

He posits some points on this single topic, then goe off on a comparison of "Eugenics" in the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin and it's advocate Lysenko.

Big deal, his own summation does not refute global warming issues, he just wants people to consider it more "objectively." As if those scientists who form the consensus don't?

Now again, I am no expert and I do want to know the truth. I don't like scare tactics whoever uses them. But I am also aware of major climate changes between my childhood and now. There is no argument that the polar caps are melting, the sea is rising, and our weather is Effed up! Based on that I'd side with the consensus and not the "nothing to see here folks" advocates.

The Northern ice Cap is not as expansive today as it was in the 70's. It is greater right now than in the last 6 years.

The Sea level is rising. It does not seem to be rising as fast as some like to claim that it is and mysteriously, even though the warming out of the Little Ice Age has been ongoing for about 400 years, the party line is that the sea level only started to rise after 1900. Does this make sense to you?

The weather has always been contrary to the goals and dreams of men. History is replete with stories of drought and famine, flood and fire. In what ways do you suppose things have changed today vs. the biblical stories of pain and destruction? This would indicate problems long before the first steam engine got fired up by coal. It is quite likely that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo because it rained.

What is your evidence that the ongoing problems with the changing weather which are very similar to all of the past changes are now caused by something different than what has caused them throughout history?

Presenting things that have happened with regularity absent the cited cause of today as evidence that the same things happening today prove a new and unique cause is responsible does not stand up to logic.

To prove the connection, you need something more compelling than, "Trust me."

 

[code1211]

His data is weak at best and biased at worst. Really, I wonder any of you conservatives actually understand what science really is.

He has doubts with regard to the Science of AGW.

Apparently all scientists do, also.

Can you name even one science organization that endorses AGW as a Scientific Theory?

Can you cite even one scientific organization that has advanced the test which will serve as the method to falsify this notion? If not, this is not even a Scientific Hypothesis.

At best, this whole thing is an idle thought.

The job of a doubter is not to prove that something that is non-existant actually does not exist. All a doubter must do is sit back and laugh at the empty arguments presented by the true believers who have no proofs, no evidence and no science to back up their claims.

It is up to the Diehards to prove their case. They laboriously erect straw men, appeal to authority, attack those who expose their claims as empty and avoid the real arguments.

If you have proof of your claims, you are free to present them. If you don't have the proof, then why do you believe?

 

[code1211]

The naysayers will deny any significant impact, even as they're commuting to work in canoes. That's how it goes with them. They can't be reasoned with. Only stopped.

About whom are you writing? To what are the naysayers saying, "Nay"?

 

[code1211]

So you can tell us what the connection is with the WFS and CERN is? Or did you not bother to look into it?

I suppose it doesn't matter. When CERN discussed the possibility that cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds and asserted that there was a connection between global climate and Cosmic Rays, they were immediately dismissed by the Diehards.

If this organization is dismissed for opposing the same AGW dogma, I suppose that could be a connection.

The address probably indicates that members of the CERN staff are also on the membership rolls of the WFS. It sounds like a very loosely formed organization, though. Probably more like a club of those that share scientific interests.

 

[Deuce]

And so the orthodox warmists, feeling threatened, resort immediately to the tell tale ad hominem.eace

As opposed to all the evidence that has been put forth in this thread?

Or am I just supposed to take their word without question, like you seem to have done?

 

[Deuce]

I suppose it doesn't matter. When CERN discussed the possibility that cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds and asserted that there was a connection between global climate and Cosmic Rays, they were immediately dismissed by the Diehards.

Not true at all. You were mislead by people who read the research and "interpreted" it for you. (read: completely made **** up) If you'd read CERN's work yourself, you'd have found that they didn't make any such connection. They didn't even comment on how their work might have implications for climate change.

 

[Moot]

This group is associated with CERN that is pretty much the Gold Standard of scientific research. Certainly more-so than NASA which has committed itself to being a big eyed weather girl performing Muslim Outreach.

How to Join

<snip>
Return this form to:

World Federation of Scientists
CERN - LAA Experiment
Building #29
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
<snip>

lol

particle accelerators ≠ climatology

 

[code1211]

Not true at all. You were mislead by people who read the research and "interpreted" it for you. (read: completely made **** up) If you'd read CERN's work yourself, you'd have found that they didn't make any such connection. They didn't even comment on how their work might have implications for climate change.

From the CERN Web Site:

CLOUD | CERN

<snip>
The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron (PS) at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science. The results should contribute much to our fundamental understanding of aerosols and clouds, and their affect on climate.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

lol

particle accelerators ≠ climatology

Yeah, those guys are idiots!

 

[Deuce]

From the CERN Web Site:

CLOUD | CERN

<snip>
The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron (PS) at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science. The results should contribute much to our fundamental understanding of aerosols and clouds, and their affect on climate.
<snip>

Sorry, I'll clarify:
CERN has not made any declarations about how much cosmic rays influence climate. When CERN published their first findings on the subject, the skeptics went and declared that it was all over, cosmic rays drive climate instead of CO2 and CERN says so. CERN did not say so.

 

[NoC_T]

About whom are you writing? To what are the naysayers saying, "Nay"?

Well you know, on both counts.

 

[Threegoofs]

I have to wonder if any of you open minded liberals actually read Lindzen's article?
.

Ah. The agenda is revealed. It's not a science thing....it's a liberal/conservative thing.

I personally would be just fine with conservative solutions to the problem, like a carbon tax rebated back via income taxes.

 

[code1211]

Sorry, I'll clarify:
CERN has not made any declarations about how much cosmic rays influence climate. When CERN published their first findings on the subject, the skeptics went and declared that it was all over, cosmic rays drive climate instead of CO2 and CERN says so. CERN did not say so.

I don't know what the "skeptics" said. All I said was that CERN said that cosmic rays probably help with cloud formation.

Any time any cloud forms at altitude which is where the Cosmic rays have their impact on cloud formation, this causes cooling.

CERN has been pretty clear that they don't know what the effect on climate has been. They have proposed that the cycle of cosmic rays seems to correlate to some cycle of climate that could affect climate, but they are not willing to put this forth. They have duplicated the cloud formation in the lab.

If only those who propose the idea of CO2 affecting the climate would be both this honest and forthcoming.

 

[code1211]

Ah. The agenda is revealed. It's not a science thing....it's a liberal/conservative thing.

I personally would be just fine with conservative solutions to the problem, like a carbon tax rebated back via income taxes.

Would this rebate occur only in the years when the warming actually occurs?

Would those who previously received the rebate when the warming actually occurred have to return it in the years when the climate cooled?

If this was real science, there wouldn't have to be considerations made for those years when the science went on vacation.

Have you found that scientific organization that has officially pronounced this notion to be a Scientific Theory or officially proposed it as a Scientific Hypothesis?