Richard Lindzen Crushes the IPCC

[Jack Hays]

UN Climate Report Is Hilariously Flawed - Richard Lindzen, Climate Depot

[h=1]MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’ eace[/h]

 

[Deuce]

Michael Mann says it's fine.

One paragraph of opinion from a noted climate "skeptic." Apparently this qualifies as "crushing" the IPCC.

but really, what was I expecting? Data? :lamo

 

[penn1954]

Michael Mann says it's fine.

One paragraph of opinion from a noted climate "skeptic." Apparently this qualifies as "crushing" the IPCC.

but really, what was I expecting? Data? :lamo

Michael Mann is an educated idiot !!:twocents:

 

[Jack Hays]

Michael Mann says it's fine.

One paragraph of opinion from a noted climate "skeptic." Apparently this qualifies as "crushing" the IPCC.

In a one-on-one debate, Lindzen would cut Mann into small pieces. MIT vs Penn State.:lamo:lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Michael Mann says it's fine.

One paragraph of opinion from a noted climate "skeptic." Apparently this qualifies as "crushing" the IPCC.

but really, what was I expecting? Data? :lamo

It's four paragraphs. Accuracy matters.

 

[Deuce]

In a one-on-one debate, Lindzen would cut Mann into small pieces. MIT vs Penn State.:lamo:lamo

Hypotheticals are fun, but in reality land here we have an IPCC document containing the works of quite a few people, a lot of data that has been diligently collected over many years. Lots of scientific material. None of which you have read, obviously. And apparently one paragraph of opinion from your favorite "skeptic," without any actual evidence being presented, counts as "crushing" that report.

He really could have just shortened his posting to "Nuh UH!"

 

[Jack Hays]

Hypotheticals are fun, but in reality land here we have an IPCC document containing the works of quite a few people, a lot of data that has been diligently collected over many years. Lots of scientific material. None of which you have read, obviously. And apparently one paragraph of opinion from your favorite "skeptic," without any actual evidence being presented, counts as "crushing" that report.

He really could have just shortened his posting to "Nuh UH!"

Keep up the denial. :lamo:lamo

 

[austrianecon]

In a one-on-one debate, Lindzen would cut Mann into small pieces. MIT vs Penn State.:lamo:lamo

Michael Mann got his degree from Yale. I am actually embarrassed he's now a full professor at my alma mater and wasn't fired.

 

[Jack Hays]

Michael Mann got his degree from Yale. I am actually embarrassed he's now a full professor at my alma mater and wasn't fired.

No disrespect to Penn State, btw. But MIT is MIT.

 

[Muhammed]

Michael Mann says it's fine.

Michael Mann is a proven fraud.

 

[code1211]

It's four paragraphs. Accuracy matters.

Accuracy means little in AGW Science.

 

[austrianecon]

No disrespect to Penn State, btw. But MIT is MIT.

Well both never graduated from those schools, rather they are Yale and Harvard douches.

MIT is an engineer school (45% of their degrees) so that's the niche and they are the best at it. Penn State doesn't have a niche but excel at many degrees one of which is engineering as well (10% or so). A name doesn't mean much to me. So when someone says MIT is MIT, I say so what? Penn State is a Public Ivy school. MIT isn't and never will be because it's a niche school.

 

[LowDown]

We can play "my authority is smarter than your authority" all day. The real question is, who's right? Let's look at the facts.

Lindzen says that the IPCC claims greater certainty in the face of evidence that their predictions are more wrong than ever. Is that right?

Damn right it's right. The climate models are all way off in terms of predicting temperatures, and most of the IPCC's other predictions have also proven to be wrong. NO increase in hurricane intensity, NO appearance of "climate refugees", and on and on. All that you can say is that there has been a warming trend, the IPCC congratulates itself for having said that much, but the IPCC failed to predict how much warming there would be.

Let's put it this way. The IPCC is almost always wrong it its predictions. And people who don't want to bet on them any more are called "deniers." Something is wrong with that logic.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well both never graduated from those schools, rather they are Yale and Harvard douches.

MIT is an engineer school (45% of their degrees) so that's the niche and they are the best at it. Penn State doesn't have a niche but excel at many degrees one of which is engineering as well (10% or so). A name doesn't mean much to me. So when someone says MIT is MIT, I say so what? Penn State is a Public Ivy school. MIT isn't and never will be because it's a niche school.

Per US News & World Report 2013 ranking of national universities, MIT is #7. Penn State is #37.eace

 

[austrianecon]

Per US News & World Report 2013 ranking of national universities, MIT is #7. Penn State is #37.eace

And I don't disagree with rankings. But that MIT degree costs you $170,000 for the same degree you can get at Penn State for as low as $65,000 and as high as $120,000. And a employee recruiter picks Penn State as the best places to recruit employees, MIT is way down on that list.

MIT has $11 billion endowment.
MIT is a private research school. (means they get royalities for their developments)
MIT offers only 44 undergrad degrees.

Penn State has a $1.7 billion endowment.
Penn State is a public research school.
Penn State offers close to a 160 undergrad degrees.

If I had an MIT budget, I better be ranked 7th with the lack of degrees I offer.

Just a fun fact, you know Bruce Banner went to Penn State right.. So we win!

 

[flogger]

Michael Mann is an educated idiot !!:twocents:

No he is just someone who has tacked his whole career upon his initial mistake and is doubtless sweating rather hard right now

 

[flogger]

In a one-on-one debate, Lindzen would cut Mann into small pieces. MIT vs Penn State.:lamo:lamo

You've no idea Jack how much I'd pay to have this guy and James Hansen the inventor of modern AGW (forced) into a public televised debate on this whole issue. Even though Lindzen isnt the most articulate of public speakers It would still end this whole costly AGW farce right there and then so I guess thats why its never going to happen

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960), S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964), Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965), NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967), NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967), AMS Meisinger Award (1968), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978), AGU Macelwane Award (1969), Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969), Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976), Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975), Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983), AMS Charney Award (1985), Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985), Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987), Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present), Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992), Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993), Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present), Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

 

[gslack]

And I don't disagree with rankings. But that MIT degree costs you $170,000 for the same degree you can get at Penn State for as low as $65,000 and as high as $120,000. And a employee recruiter picks Penn State as the best places to recruit employees, MIT is way down on that list.

MIT has $11 billion endowment.
MIT is a private research school. (means they get royalities for their developments)
MIT offers only 44 undergrad degrees.

Penn State has a $1.7 billion endowment.
Penn State is a public research school.
Penn State offers close to a 160 undergrad degrees.

If I had an MIT budget, I better be ranked 7th with the lack of degrees I offer.

Just a fun fact, you know Bruce Banner went to Penn State right.. So we win!

MIT does a great deal of research funded by the government, Dept of Defense, and various other military and non-military as well as intelligence agencies.. What you think Microsoft, Apple or Google pay for things like the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory they have there?

LOL, "private" means it doesn't use funds reserved for public or "State" schools. It does not mean it's funded entirely by private companies.

 

[austrianecon]

MIT does a great deal of research funded by the government, Dept of Defense, and various other military and non-military as well as intelligence agencies.. What you think Microsoft, Apple or Google pay for things like the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory they have there?

So does Penn State when it comes to Government funding. You don't think Penn State has a few cash cows to the tune of $300 million a year which is more the MIT.

LOL, "private" means it doesn't use funds reserved for public or "State" schools. It does not mean it's funded entirely by private companies.

I never said it does. Private means (individuals and companies) that they keep X amount of money for the development of privately funded research. So for example in 2012 MIT grossed $120 million from Royalties, Patent Reimbursement, and Equity Cash-In. In 2012 Penn State had $3.1 million from Shale Oil research contracts which they report as an income for the purpose of showing no bias.

 

[Jack Hays]

So does Penn State when it comes to Government funding. You don't think Penn State has a few cash cows to the tune of $300 million a year which is more the MIT.



I never said it does. Private means (individuals and companies) that they keep X amount of money for the development of privately funded research. So for example in 2012 MIT grossed $120 million from Royalties, Patent Reimbursement, and Equity Cash-In. In 2012 Penn State had $3.1 million from Shale Oil research contracts which they report as an income for the purpose of showing no bias.

This has gotten out of hand. I had no intention to disrespect Penn State, but rather to underline Lindzen's superiority to Mann. eace

 

[gslack]

So does Penn State when it comes to Government funding. You don't think Penn State has a few cash cows to the tune of $300 million a year which is more the MIT.



I never said it does. Private means (individuals and companies) that they keep X amount of money for the development of privately funded research. So for example in 2012 MIT grossed $120 million from Royalties, Patent Reimbursement, and Equity Cash-In. In 2012 Penn State had $3.1 million from Shale Oil research contracts which they report as an income for the purpose of showing no bias.

MIT defense and intel money and that of Penn state? Not even in the same tier. You yourself made the claim they get so much more money in your last post..

Do you have a source for those numbers and claims? I mean if your going to throw numbers into it, best to know where they come from and if they are genuine.

Either way, your example is not addressing the point. The point was research money not how much they made off of anything they turned into a profit.. You ignore research grants entirely.. IF you are changing your previous claim to one of profits now,the entire conversation is moot..

 

[austrianecon]

This has gotten out of hand. I had no intention to disrespect Penn State, but rather to underline Lindzen's superiority to Mann. eace

But Mann just teaches at Penn State. He's a paid professor. It's a job. Are you gonna say Lindizen was gonna get stomp if he was at NC State (and mention it) and Mann was at MIT? Of course not, you would go back to the respect Universities the got their degrees from because as you say.. people judge on a Name and Harvard (where Lindizen went to school) is better then NC State. But by putting Penn State in the same sentence as him is denoting some how Lindzen's better because he teaches at MIT. But doesn't mean anything as I said from the start. Both Lindzen and Mann went to Ivy league schools. They took jobs at schools which aren't "Ivy" league.

 

[Deuce]

It's four paragraphs. Accuracy matters.

It's opinion. I'll stick with science.

 

[austrianecon]

MIT defense and intel money and that of Penn state? Not even in the same tier. You yourself made the claim they get so much more money in your last post..

Oh boy.. Defense and Intel money that goes to MIT is research in the theoretical but it doesn't top Penn State still as MIT brought in $95 million in DoD money in 2009. Penn State does applied research and brought in $173 million from DoD. In short MIT comes up with an idea that might work, Penn State makes it happen.

But in fact Penn State and Raytheon have a very close relationship considering it's Intel lab is in State College. Penn State's Applied Research Lab (much like MIT's Lincoln Lab) has a very close relationship with the US Navy and has since 1945. NSA considers Penn State a partner in training and research in cyber security.

Do you have a source for those numbers and claims? I mean if your going to throw numbers into it, best to know where they come from and if they are genuine.

MIT 2009 = $718 million
Penn State 2003-2012 = $765 million

We should also note that Penn State lost $35-40 million from State (PA) funding for 2012 due to budget cuts.

Either way, your example is not addressing the point. The point was research money not how much they made off of anything they turned into a profit.. You ignore research grants entirely.. IF you are changing your previous claim to one of profits now,the entire conversation is moot..[/QUOTE]

I haven't changed anything. I was just pointing out MIT gets to profit off it's research and Penn State can't as public school.

 

[Jack Hays]

But Mann just teaches at Penn State. He's a paid professor. It's a job. Are you gonna say Lindizen was gonna get stomp if he was at NC State (and mention it) and Mann was at MIT? Of course not, you would go back to the respect Universities the got their degrees from because as you say.. people judge on a Name and Harvard (where Lindizen went to school) is better then NC State. But by putting Penn State in the same sentence as him is denoting some how Lindzen's better because he teaches at MIT. But doesn't mean anything as I said from the start. Both Lindzen and Mann went to Ivy league schools. They took jobs at schools which aren't "Ivy" league.

MIT is MIT. Mann could not be hired there. That's the difference.