‘Climate Change’ Is No More Credible than Magic Says Top Physicist

not saying hes right, but im sure a lot of people who get paid to "research climate change" do not want someone saying that its alarmist nonsense

its fairly common for dissenting scientists to be proven correct

The entire problem with this line of thinking is that based on no further evidence beyond something you've concocted in your head, you're attempting to downplay the reaction of actual Climate Scientists to Lindzen.

If anyone is credible out of these people, it's them over him. Let's just go over where the credentials are coming from:

-Professors
This is a wash, Lindzen is one, they are as well.

-Institution
Also a wash, MIT for both

-Focus
Clearly in favor of the Climate Scientists since they're studying the climate and Lindzen is a physicist.

-Number
One vs Many, add in the fact that this is their focus, and that speaks volumes.

So unless you think "Climate alarmism" is a real thing that is pervasive in academia (of which there is basically no evidence), why do you take Lindzen seriously here? We're not even getting into the knowing the science aspect of things, we're just on surface credibility.

As an aside though, you do know that there's no benefit in playing to the status quo with scientific discoveries right? All the people who think this is a big conspiracy are ignoring that if one person were to outright disprove AGW in light of the evidence, they would be considered the world's foremost swinging dick on Climate Science. So it's telling when all the people who think they have alarmism figured out aren't submitting anything that disproves the evidence on hand. If you think they're liars, where's your evidence? Anyone can say "Nuh uh, you're wrong", where's the evidence?
 
Climate change is real...always has been...always will be...man made climate change is a fraud...not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting AGW over natural variability.
 
"I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science..."

Damn this part can't be ignore. How are we supposed to take him seriously?
 
The entire problem with this line of thinking is that based on no further evidence beyond something you've concocted in your head, you're attempting to downplay the reaction of actual Climate Scientists to Lindzen.

If anyone is credible out of these people, it's them over him. Let's just go over where the credentials are coming from:

-Professors
This is a wash, Lindzen is one, they are as well.

-Institution
Also a wash, MIT for both

-Focus
Clearly in favor of the Climate Scientists since they're studying the climate and Lindzen is a physicist.

-Number
One vs Many, add in the fact that this is their focus, and that speaks volumes.

So unless you think "Climate alarmism" is a real thing that is pervasive in academia (of which there is basically no evidence), why do you take Lindzen seriously here? We're not even getting into the knowing the science aspect of things, we're just on surface credibility.

As an aside though, you do know that there's no benefit in playing to the status quo with scientific discoveries right? All the people who think this is a big conspiracy are ignoring that if one person were to outright disprove AGW in light of the evidence, they would be considered the world's foremost swinging dick on Climate Science. So it's telling when all the people who think they have alarmism figured out aren't submitting anything that disproves the evidence on hand. If you think they're liars, where's your evidence? Anyone can say "Nuh uh, you're wrong", where's the evidence?

i said, i dont know if hes right, im not qualified to speak on it. i dont know who is right, but in science, you should avoid the tyranny of the majority opinion

there is evidence of dissenters being attacked and discredited, just like that letter. so there is some "climate alarmism" in that there are negative consequences of dissenting
 
I don't know if global warming is real, but the solution is another scam - tax the average joe while the multinationals get away with it through some financial scheme
 
i said, i dont know if hes right, im not qualified to speak on it. i dont know who is right, but in science, you should avoid the tyranny of the majority opinion

there is evidence of dissenters being attacked and discredited, just like that letter. so there is some "climate alarmism" in that there are negative consequences of dissenting

You consider that letter "attacking and discrediting"? That's a pretty low bar don't you think?

Also Lindzen has been distorting information for way longer than this, you think THEY'RE the ones ruining his reputation?

This is from a year ago, Lindzen too. Why should we trust his word at face value?

 
So what's the alternative? Repeal all restrictions on emissions and live in a toxic paradise like the Chinese do?
These are related but distinct topics. You can control pollution without stopping CO2 emissions, as CO2 is basically an inert gas, it's slightly acid in solution but it's no big deal.
Example, an old car without a catalyst will emit tons of black smoke that nobody denies is bad for your health. A modern car will emit mostly CO2 and water vapor, which will cause global warming but is otherwise clean.

If global warming was not a thing you would still want to ban things like coal, deforestation or factories that emit NOx and SO2 but you wouldn't care that much about replacing modern gasoline powered cars and there would be no reason to stop using natural gas.

I personally believe that global warming is a thing but I don't think it will be catastrophic in the long run. Modern agriculture and engineering will be able to overcome it. It may even be beneficial, maybe greenland will be green again.
 
So what's the alternative? Repeal all restrictions on emissions and live in a toxic paradise like the Chinese do?
Jumping to that extreme would be foolish imo, but so is treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The EPA should focus on regulating actual pollutants like sulfur dioxide.
 
How about the American Meteorological Society

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

NASA has been caught lying about the issue to push a narrative before. The are a political animal and not to be trusted.
 
You can keep your bullshit in your pot, thanks.
It's just a topic of conversation RP. If it bothers you simply don't participate, or post your rebuttal so you can feel like you took a stance. People argue, insult and freak the fuck out on here like the opinions and comments of random anonymous people in this forum mean much of anything. Oh its nice I suppose if someone agrees with you but ultimately neither you nor I really know each other nor will we so why should either of us really give a fuck what the other thinks?

Do ANY of these conversations really change others opinions? Most are nothing more than group Op Ed pieces.
 
Here, I'll present the data. You explain why it's incorrect.





Here's a fun report. It's about the 900 page Climate Change report that the Chinese government put out last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/asia/china-climate-change-global-warming.html

RISING TEMPERATURES
Average temperatures across China have been rising faster than the global average, and that trend is likely to continue, the report says. From 1909 to 2011, average temperatures across China rose between 0.9 and 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.6 and 2.7 Fahrenheit). Governments have set a goal of trying to limit future temperature rises in this century to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. But even if that global goal is met, temperature rises across China will be substantially higher: 2.7 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (4.9 to 5.2 Fahrenheit), the report says.


PRECIPITATION AND WATER
Although global warming sometimes conjures images of parched deserts, the consequences for rain and snowfall across China are more complicated, as they are for many other parts of the world. Warmer air absorbs more moisture that, sooner or later, is released as precipitation. The effects on precipitation across China are likely to vary widely, and scientists are still working on finer-grained models of likely change. In parts of northern, northwestern and southern China, rain and snowfall have decreased in recent decades, while in other regions, especially out west, precipitation has increased.

Over this century, the report says, China’s total precipitation could increase 2 percent to 5 percent. But increased evaporation due to higher temperatures can mean that soil and waterways retain less of that water. “Over all, climate change may further intensify the occurrence of floods and droughts,” the report says. “This will pose even more severe challenges for management of water resources.”


AGRICULTURE
The Chinese government has made national food self-sufficiency a priority, fearing that reliance on foreign markets could make the country economically and politically vulnerable. So there is a great deal of research in China on the effects of global warming on agriculture, but also considerable uncertainty. Warmer weather could extend the growing season for some crops, especially in northeast China. But farmers will also have to cope with increased pests, less reliable rain and irrigation, and hotter summers.

Over all, climate change will cause earlier and shorter growing seasons, a proliferation of diseases and pests, and intensifying hazards. That does not mean that China will inevitably face famine, the report stresses, but adaptation in crop varieties and in farming and irrigation technology will be needed to cope with these stresses.

HIGHER SEA LEVELS
Across the planet, sea levels have been rising because of melting polar caps and the accumulated heat that is expanding oceans. But the effects are not uniform. Some parts of the planet experience higher rises than others, reflecting the effects of ocean currents, winds and the gravitational influence of polar ice masses. And China, the report says, is in a part of the world where sea level rises have been relatively high and are likely to remain that way. From 1980 to 2012, China’s coastal seas rose an average of 2.9 millimeters, or 0.11 inch, a year, higher than the global average. Forecasting how fast future rises will be is difficult, partly because much rests on the future of the polar ice sheets.

In the next 30 years, the East China Sea off Shanghai could rise between 7.5 and 14.5 centimeters, or 3 and 5.7 inches. The rises will force back the coastline and expose low-lying areas to worse damage from storms and typhoons, which whip up surges of water, as well as inundations of saltwater into waterways and farmland. Each rise of one centimeter in sea level could push the coastline back more than 10 meters, or 32.8 feet, the report says. It calls for much greater investment in sea walls and other protections.


Here are the results from several surveys of scientists over the course of several years.

800px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

Here is the list of surveys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Skeptical Science analyzed over 12,000 studies published on climate change and found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=4DADD4430CC221139C870CF37FE51D20.c1


Here's another study. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

Here's a nifty graph
poll_scientists.gif

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full


This isn't just some thing Al Gore made up.

The Climate Change Summit in Paris was one of the biggest gatherings of world leaders and government reps of all time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/europe/obama-climate-conference-cop21.html

The rest of the world is well aware that climate change is legit. The only people that disagree are a few outliers that happen to influence a lot of really stupid Republicans.

The climate has changed in the past. Numerous times. However, it has never been such a significant change in such a short amount of time without some sort of catastrophic influence (i.e. meteor that wiped out dinosaurs, giant volcanic eruption, etc).

Here's a graph from NASA showing CO2 levels going back thousands of years. CO2 levels almost always coincide with temperature. This is why it is referred to as a greenhouse gas.

203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg


here's what they had to say..

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

We're seeing the ocean rise at an unprecedented level
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/SLR_fact_sheet_020207.pdf

Surface temperatures have increased despite a decline in solar output
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

Oceans are getting hotter. This is what's causing the bleaching of the reef.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Ice caps be shrinking
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Ocean Acidity has increased 30% since the industrial revolution (this is also a cause of the reef bleaching)
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

Not to mention, glacial retreating, drops in arctic sea ice, decreased snow cover.

One could argue that humans aren't producing enough CO2 to create much of a change. This is a common myth that deniers use (albeit unfounded).

Before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels remained roughly in balance. They went up and down predictably. However, since then, we've seen a radical change. This is because we've introduced more carbon dioxide into the air, while simultaneously decreasing the amount of trees (nature's natural CO2 filter)
Carbon_Cycle.gif

The numbers above are in gigatons.

Consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the naturalncarbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

Researchers did an aerial survey of Australia's Great Barrier reef and found that of the 520 reefs surveyed, 516 showed signs of significant bleaching.

Bleaching is caused by the abnormally high sea temperatures that kill off the tint marine algae essential to coral health, leaving sections of the reef white and barren.

Professor Terry Hughes, a coral reef expert based at James Cook University in Townsville who led the survey team, said the situation is now critical. "This will change the Great Barrier Reef forever."

"It's too early to tell precisely how many of the bleached coral will die, but judging from the extreme level even the most robust corals are snow white, I'd expect to see about half of those corals die in the coming month or so," Professor Hughes said.

This is the third global coral bleaching since 1998, and scientists have found no evidence of these disasters before the late 20th century. "We have coral cores that provide 400 years of annual growth," explains Dr Neal Cantin from the Australian Institute of Marine Science. "We don't see the signatures of bleaching in reduced growth following a bleaching event until the recent 1998/2000 events."

The article continues on about how global warming is fucking up the reef.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-...l-bleaching-95-per-cent-north-section/7279338
 
It's just a topic of conversation RP. If it bothers you simply don't participate, or post your rebuttal so you can feel like you took a stance. People argue, insult and freak the fuck out on here like the opinions and comments of random anonymous people in this forum mean much of anything. Oh its nice I suppose if someone agrees with you but ultimately neither you nor I really know each other nor will we so why should either of us really give a fuck what the other thinks?

Do ANY of these conversations really change others opinions? Most are nothing more than group Op Ed pieces.

35398830.jpg
 
NASA has been caught lying about the issue to push a narrative before. The are a political animal and not to be trusted.

That quote is not from NASA, it's from the American Meteorological Society. There is also validation form the Canadian, Australian and World Meteorological Societies. Skepticism is fine but to move completely into cynicism is pretty extreme. Do you trust any organization?
 
That quote is not from NASA, it's from the American Meteorological Society. There is also validation form the Canadian, Australian and World Meteorological Societies. Skepticism is fine but to move completely into cynicism is pretty extreme. Do you trust any organization?

Not if it pokes holes in his narrative lol.
 
Member when Lindzen's own colleagues at MIT said he was full of shit?

I member.

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news...y-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

nT6ygg0.png



Translation

Dear Mr. President:

Our positions in the University system were created to support the global warming hoax. If the truth were to get out our livelihoods would be in danger. We have mortgages to pay. Please ignore the jerk telling truth and don't forget that we think that consensus is science.

Thanks,

MIT people who depend on climate science grants and fundings
 
Translation

Dear Mr. President:

Our positions in the University system were created to support the global warming hoax. If the truth were to get out our livelihoods would be in danger. We have mortgages to pay. Please ignore the jerk telling truth and don't forget that we think that consensus is science.

Thanks,

MIT people who depend on climate science grants and fundings

And you sir are an idiot
 
Back
Top