On October 8, Dr. Richard Lindzen, a retired Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and one of if not the most distinguished academic meteorologists alive today, gave a brilliant speech on climate change sponsored by the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London. The full speech can be found here. James Delingpole’s summary of it can be found here.
The speech has a number of great quotations, many of which Delingpole includes in his summary, including this conclusion concerning the great climate scam:
- So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.
This does not mean that I agree with Lindzen in all respects. I believe that the situation is even worse than the overview that he paints. The most important difference I have with him is that he believes that carbon dioxide has made a significant contribution to global temperatures. I disagree in terms of real world contributions. Although a theoretical case can be made that changes in CO2 could change temperatures, it in fact does not make a significant contribution according to econometric studies. This, of course, makes the current “consensus” even more ridiculous than what Lindzen portrays since CO2 has not been just one of many contributors to global temperatures, it has not been a significant contributor at all.
yes you are right check this one So if the eruption took place in October, how to explain Pliny’s letter to Tacitus describing it as having happened in August?.
[…] Dr. Richard Lindzen Demolishes the Climate Change Scam […]
Another statistical argument, using vocabulary of signal processing, is the amount of claimed temperature increase (or signal) per annum is very small. And this is based on a vast number of measures (providing a great deal of enveloping noise). The signal cannot be reliably distinguished out of the noisy data.
Unsurprisingly the claims of increases do not satisfy or comply QA requirements as regards confidence intervals. The press offices of USG agencies under Obama would announce temperature increases, but these increases were not reliably distinguishable from prior year averages. All well within the confidence interval. So the press releases irresponsibly reported increases that could not be justified based on responsible statistical reporting required by scientists within these very agencies.
This is not entirely surprising if one realizes a fish rots from the head, it is said. If Obama and Gore assert there is warming, then most of those who are employed by Uncle Sam will comply and fall into line.
Doc was the rare exception to the usual rule that Eco vassals loyally salute the Eco Fuhrer. Doc had a higher fidelity.
Delingpole often writes well in terms of outreasoning the hoaxers and their flock of lemmings.
It is indeed ridiculous farce If CO2 levels do not even correlate much with temperatures. This means CO2 is not even plausible as a factor that influences temperatures.
Cargo cultism! ??
Keep nailing shut the coffin lid, Doc.
Correlation does not imply causation.
In any event, there only correlation betwixt co2 and temperature, tracking both up and down trends shows temperature variation FIRST and similar variation LATER in co2 level.
Co2 has been steadily increasing since the mid 1800s. However, since there was a cooling between 1945 and 1975 our warming has only been (not quite) synchronous beginning in 1975. No reason to attribute any global temp increase relevant before 1975. But there have also been global pauses in temperature increase since 1975.
It is not obvious what it is exactly that you are referring to. An explanation and details needed.
Tony.
Well thats obviously ridiculous