• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Lindzen vs the Climate Charlatans

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a reminder of what real climate science looks like, and how lonely it has become in our era of warmist advocacy madness.

Quality versus Quantity: Richard Lindzen takes on the Commissars of CO2 Alarm

Posted on 25 Nov 15 by John ShadeLeave a comment
Richard Lindzen is one of our most distinguished theoreticians of meteorology. His track record of innovation and detailed analyses is outstanding, and yet his voice has been all but drowned out by the hullaballoo being raised by a dramatically risen tide of newly-coined ‘climate scientists’ and associated political and financial opportunists. These are people who … Continue reading →

". . . The historian Bernie Lewin (2012) has argued that 1995 was the turning-point for the corruption of science associated with climate when the cracks and gaping holes in the case for our CO2 emissions beginning to dominate climate were artfully covered over by, in particular, Ben Santer and John Houghton. If he is right, then these two quite mediocre scientists helped keep the political world on a foolish and destructive path. Those who wish to see an end to capitalism, i.e. to lively markets and individual freedom, have seized upon this notion that our industrial and agricultural achievements, which came out of capitalist societies, are so harmful that capitalism itself must be ‘destroyed’. A recent manifestation from such people has been the witch-hunt instigated against the oil company Exxon in the fervent hope that incriminating documents are to be found showing how they malevolently concealed their knowledge of the supposed climate crisis. Lewin (2015) has neatly shown just how implausible this is. . . ."
 
Here is a reminder of what real climate science looks like, and how lonely it has become in our era of warmist advocacy madness.

Quality versus Quantity: Richard Lindzen takes on the Commissars of CO2 Alarm

Posted on 25 Nov 15 by John ShadeLeave a comment
Richard Lindzen is one of our most distinguished theoreticians of meteorology. His track record of innovation and detailed analyses is outstanding, and yet his voice has been all but drowned out by the hullaballoo being raised by a dramatically risen tide of newly-coined ‘climate scientists’ and associated political and financial opportunists. These are people who … Continue reading →

". . . The historian Bernie Lewin (2012) has argued that 1995 was the turning-point for the corruption of science associated with climate when the cracks and gaping holes in the case for our CO2 emissions beginning to dominate climate were artfully covered over by, in particular, Ben Santer and John Houghton. If he is right, then these two quite mediocre scientists helped keep the political world on a foolish and destructive path. Those who wish to see an end to capitalism, i.e. to lively markets and individual freedom, have seized upon this notion that our industrial and agricultural achievements, which came out of capitalist societies, are so harmful that capitalism itself must be ‘destroyed’. A recent manifestation from such people has been the witch-hunt instigated against the oil company Exxon in the fervent hope that incriminating documents are to be found showing how they malevolently concealed their knowledge of the supposed climate crisis. Lewin (2015) has neatly shown just how implausible this is. . . ."

Jack, the sad thing about all this is that the scam should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't have an ulterior motive ... obvious even to the easily influenced sheeple .
 
Jack, the sad thing about all this is that the scam should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't have an ulterior motive ... obvious even to the easily influenced sheeple .

Hans Christian Anderson's famous story illustrated "Group Think"
but you know what? this is more than that. The people running
this thing know exactly what they are doing, and what they are
doing is trying to turn the corner by getting laws and regulations
passed that once in place will be nearly impossible to repeal.
 
Hans Christian Anderson's famous story illustrated "Group Think"
but you know what? this is more than that. The people running
this thing know exactly what they are doing, and what they are
doing is trying to turn the corner by getting laws and regulations
passed that once in place will be nearly impossible to repeal.

Bingo.
A tried and true practice.
 
Opinion
[h=1]Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change[/h] Guest opinion by Arkady Bukh, Esq The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities. Jim Jones, the People’s Temple leader, led over 900 persons to commit suicide 32 years ago. Jones was charismatic and knowledgeable of both Scriptures and human behavior. After the mass murder/suicide and the murder of U.S. Congressman,…
 
Climate News
[h=1]Some first clips of new film “Climate Hustle” air on Fox News[/h] While some 40,000 climate advocates are in Paris to try to reach some sort of agreement on wealth redistribution in the name of stopping climate change, there is a small contingent of climate skeptics, including people from the Heartland Institute and CFACT. Marc Morano of Climate depot is about to unveil a film “Climate Hustle”…
 
Climate News / media
[h=1]Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm[/h] Guest essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm. In the December 3, 2015 edition of the Boston Globe, the distinguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, had on op-ed, “Misunderstandings, questionable beliefs mar Paris climate talks.” His main point, stated…
 
Bob Carter — a great man, gone far too soon — tributes flow


Professor Bob Carter

One of the best things about being a skeptic are the people I’ve got to know, and Bob Carter was one of the best of them, sadly taken far too soon. He was outstanding, a true gem, a good soul, and an implacably rational thinker. A softly spoken man of conscience and good humour.
So it is dreadful news that he suffered a heart attack last week in Townsville. For the last few days I have been hoping that he would return to us, but alas, tonight he passed away peacefully, surrounded by family.
We shall miss you Bob.
Professor Bob Carter (74) has been a key figure in the Global Warming debate, doing exactly what good professors ought to do — challenging paradigms, speaking internationally, writing books, newspaper articles, and being invited to give special briefings with Ministers in Parliament. He started work at James Cook University in 1981, served as Head of the Geology Department until 1998, and sometime after that he retired. Since then he’d been an honorary Adjunct Professor.
He was a man who followed the scientific path, no matter where it took him, and even if it cost him, career-wise, every last bell and whistle that the industry of science bestowed, right down to his very email address. After decades of excellent work, he continued on as an emeritus professor, speaking out in a calm and good natured way against poor reasoning and bad science. But the high road is the hard road and the university management tired of dealing with the awkward questions and the flack that comes with speaking truths that upset the gravy train. First James Cook University (JCU) took away his office, then they took his title. In protest at that, another professor hired Bob immediately for an hour a week so Bob could continue supervising students and keep his library access. But that was blocked as well, even the library pass and his email account were taken away, though they cost the University almost nothing. . . .

Probably the saddest aspect of the whole petty saga of the Blackballing of Bob Carter was that JCU felt it was fine to explain that Bob’s mistake was that he had come to an inconvenient conclusion on climate change. It wasn’t that he got the facts wrong, instead his “views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities.” So much for academic freedom. Apparently it took up too much time to defend Carter against outside complaints about his public writings and lectures on climate change.
Such is the state of intellectual rigor in Australian universities. As I said at the time:
… every person in the chain of command tacitly, or in at least one case, actively endorsed the blackballing. Each one failed to stand for free speech and rigorous debate.
The only one in that chain at JCU who would always put science before politics was Professor Robert Carter. He was a rare and remarkable man, and I will keenly miss his wisdom and philosophical good nature. . . .

The sad short notification from Anne tonight
“We are very sad to inform you that Bob passed away peacefully this evening in the company of his family. Heartland has put together a great bio on Bob’s career.
One thing is for sure, Bob made the most of every minute he had and was a fighter to the very end.
He would want to thank you for your support and to say how much he enjoyed working with each and every one of you.
Funeral arrangements are being made and will be advised when finalised but most likely on Monday next week in Townsville.” — Anne Carter
All my posts on Bob Carter. This won’t be the last. The world would be a much better place if it were a world with more Bob Carters.
And the tributes flow: . . . .
 
[h=1]Catastrophe “was the narrative from the beginning” says Lindzen[/h] Posted on 23 Feb 16 by Alex Cull7 Comments
Earlier this month, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus at MIT Richard Lindzen was interviewed by radio host William Frezza, and here is a transcript of that interview. The conversation covers a fair deal of ground, ranging from the inadequacies of processing temperature measurements and the way computer models are tweaked to get the expected results … Continue reading →
 
[h=1]Catastrophe “was the narrative from the beginning” says Lindzen[/h] Posted on 23 Feb 16 by Alex Cull7 Comments
Earlier this month, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus at MIT Richard Lindzen was interviewed by radio host William Frezza, and here is a transcript of that interview. The conversation covers a fair deal of ground, ranging from the inadequacies of processing temperature measurements and the way computer models are tweaked to get the expected results … Continue reading →

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Kudos for posting a very informative, at least for me, link! :thumbs: I found myself nodding in agreement because it covered the five "W's" that I was always taught to ask on any questions - Who, What, Where, When and Why - which I was required to answer on the numerous papers I was required to write while in college using deductive reasoning on what we students believed to be hypothetical events. We later learned they were actual events, BTW, and our papers were graded based on how well we understood what had occurred in actual legal cases!

IMO, Lindzen explained as factually as he could without actually denigrating those he disagreed with, and I liked that! It was also interesting that he has received no funding because he isn't going along with the "mythical 95 percent consensus!" This topic is much too important to actual scientific research to have become political, but where billions of dollars are involved in various forms of current funding and future giveaways to help poor nations - via our tax dollars - it is understandable, I guess.

:rantoff:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Kudos for posting a very informative, at least for me, link! :thumbs: I found myself nodding in agreement because it covered the five "W's" that I was always taught to ask on any questions - Who, What, Where, When and Why - which I was required to answer on the numerous papers I was required to write while in college using deductive reasoning on what we students believed to be hypothetical events. We later learned they were actual events, BTW, and our papers were graded based on how well we understood what had occurred in actual legal cases!

IMO, Lindzen explained as factually as he could without actually denigrating those he disagreed with, and I liked that! It was also interesting that he has received no funding because he isn't going along with the "mythical 95 percent consensus!" This topic is much too important to actual scientific research to have become political, but where billions of dollars are involved in various forms of current funding and future giveaways to help poor nations - via our tax dollars - it is understandable, I guess.

:rantoff:

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

Glad you enjoyed it. Lindzen is a great and brave man. I hope he lives long enough to see his vindication.
 
[h=2]Environmental journal pulls two papers for “compromised” peer review[/h] with 2 comments
Environmental Geochemistry and Health has retracted two papers after an investigation suggested that the peer-review process had been compromised.
In case you’re counting, we’ve now logged approximately 300 retractions stemming from likely faked or rigged peer review.
The retraction note — which is the same for both papers — explains a bit more about the situation: Read the rest of this entry »
 
Climate News
[h=1]Peter Gleick Resigns as President of Pacific Institute … Because of Fakegate?[/h] Guest essay by Joe Bast On Thursday, March 24th, POLITICO announced disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick has stepped down as president of the Pacific Institute, though he will remain there as a researcher and fundraiser. Interestingly, no successor has been named, so “the search for a new president is underway.” What was the hurry? In 2012,…
 
Politics
[h=1]The New Dark Age – Exploiting Faith to Coerce Climate Obedience[/h] Guest essay by Eric Worrall Climate worriers appear to be increasingly looking for ways to exploit people’s religious faith, to coerce ordinary people into accepting green destitution; into abandoning mechanised transport, into letting farmland return to wilderness. Can imams drive action on climate change in Pakistan? Imams and other religious leaders are an under-used means…
 
[h=1]New Lindzen video[/h] Posted on 20 Apr 16 by Paul Matthews17 Comments
A new YouTube video by Richard Lindzen has appeared, called Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? It’s only 5 minutes long, which I think is about the right length for this kind of thing, and has some quite professional-looking graphics. Despite only being up since Monday, it seems to have had over 270,000 views and … Continue reading →
 
Back
Top Bottom