Professor Lindzen's Critique of the IPCC

[Jack Hays]

Because his tone is so reasonable and his language is so restrained, Professor Lindzen's critique is all the more cutting.

[h=2]Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment[/h] Posted on October 8, 2013 by Guest Blogger
Guest essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen
Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. That is to say the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document, and as George Orwell noted, political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming; all models show greater tropical warming than has been observed since 1978; and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth. And yet, as the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever.
Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims. Continue reading →eace

 

[Deuce]

Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.

 

[Jack Hays]

Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.

I believe the Orwell quote is from an essay rather than 1984 but I could be mistaken. Regardless, it's well within the bounds of polite discourse.

 

[Deuce]

I believe the Orwell quote is from an essay rather than 1984 but I could be mistaken. Regardless, it's well within the bounds of polite discourse.

If I call you a murderer in a calm monotone, this is not polite discourse.

Coal emissions cause cancer.
You support less restrictions on coal emissions.
Therefore you support more cancer, including that in children.
Demonstrated: You support the death of children.

What? This is just logical, polite discourse. No need to get so upset. Why can't you talk about your support for dead children rationally?

 

[Jack Hays]

If I call you a murderer in a calm monotone, this is not polite discourse.

Coal emissions cause cancer.
You support less restrictions on coal emissions.
Therefore you support more cancer, including that in children.
Demonstrated: You support the death of children.

What? This is just logical, polite discourse. No need to get so upset. Why can't you talk about your support for dead children rationally?

I have no objection to your formulation. What's your point?eace

 

[Deuce]

I have no objection to your formulation. What's your point?eace

That you support the death of children, and so does Lindzen. Why are you listening to a murderer?

 

[Jack Hays]

That you support the death of children, and so does Lindzen. Why are you listening to a murderer?

I am willing to let you make this argument ad infinitum because it damages only you. Let me know when you're ready to take up the substance of Lindzen's critique.

 

[Deuce]

I am willing to let you make this argument ad infinitum because it damages only you. Let me know when you're ready to take up the substance of Lindzen's critique.

If Lindzen wanted that, he shouldn't have started with ad hominem. And his critique centers around certain statements by the IPCC "contradicting alarming predictions." However, this makes an unfounded assumption that being "alarming" is some sort of goal that the IPCC, or climate scientists in general, have.

He also makes an erroneous statement that all estimates of mankind's influence are dependent upon climate models.

Happy?

 

[Jack Hays]

If Lindzen wanted that, he shouldn't have started with ad hominem.

It's not an ad hominem if it's true.

 

[Deuce]

Here's a good straw man from Lindzen:

The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.

Nobody was suggesting that it was. Again, Lindzen is making the mistake in believing that he can just snip out little bits of the report and treat them as if they exist in a vacuum.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's a good straw man from Lindzen:



Nobody was suggesting that it was. Again, Lindzen is making the mistake in believing that he can just snip out little bits of the report and treat them as if they exist in a vacuum.

So you agree with him?

 

[Deuce]

It's not an ad hominem if it's true.

The Orwell remark was not responding to "the substance" of the IPCC report. Suddenly that's ok when your guy does it.

 

[Deuce]

So you agree with him?

Um, yes. Like I said, it's a straw man he's attacking.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Orwell remark was not responding to "the substance" of the IPCC report. Suddenly that's ok when your guy does it.

It was about what we today call "spin" and therefore fully on point.

 

[Jack Hays]

Um, yes. Like I said, it's a straw man he's attacking.

Whatever you say.

 

[code1211]

Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.

No matter how calm or excited the presentation, the comparison is appropriate.

 

[code1211]

Here's a good straw man from Lindzen:



Nobody was suggesting that it was. Again, Lindzen is making the mistake in believing that he can just snip out little bits of the report and treat them as if they exist in a vacuum.

As always, you strive to be as unclear as possible in your assertions.

Are you saying that the IPCC is not recommending any changes in anything done by man?

 

[Deuce]

As always, you strive to be as unclear as possible in your assertions.

Are you saying that the IPCC is not recommending any changes in anything done by man?

I wasn't unclear. I said what I meant. Then you decided to add to it for some reason. This is your problem, not mine.

 

[code1211]

I wasn't unclear. I said what I meant. Then you decided to add to it for some reason. This is your problem, not mine.

As always, no point and no conclusion in your post.

 

[jmotivator]

Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.

It's Orwell's commentary on the misleading nature of political language. Quite appropriate when speaking of a paper written by politicians to describe a study of science.

You getting bent out of shape doesn't invalidate a scholarly reference.

 

[Deuce]

As always, no point and no conclusion in your post.

The conclusion you should have reached from the post you just quoted is "No, I wasn't saying that."

Jesus you have to spell out everything for some people.

 

[Jack Hays]

The conclusion you should have reached from the post you just quoted is "No, I wasn't saying that."

Jesus you have to spell out everything for some people.

You're doing an admirable job of avoiding a substantive discussion.:applaud

 

[code1211]

You're doing an admirable job of avoiding a substantive discussion.:applaud

It is what he does. He thinks he's a Greek Oracle and not allowed to actually state an opinion or make an actual statement.

He will go on for several posts saying that he didn't say anything. I will just shortcut the process this time and accept that he has once again said nothing.