On Monday, October 26th, the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The video is now available in addition to the powerpoint. Thanks to CEI’s globalwarming.org
Video link of Dr. Lindzen’s presentation, “Deconstructing Global Warming”
Here is part 1 through 6 as a play list
(thanks to “therightscoop”)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was able to find the raw file (the link didn’t work for me) and if you go here:
http://bit.ly/2oXWwD
you should be able to watch the presentation.
I’m currently downloading the file (it is 288 mb) and if no one else can, I can try to post it to YouTube later today.
The Quicktime link doesn’t work even with Quicktime. CEI needs to test the evidence that their technology works after they post their files.
Thanks for posting the video Anthony.
Good to see the Cooler Heads Coalition doing their stuff and here’s hoping it encourages some other climate scientists to pluck up the courage to join the AGW sceptics.
Provided the sceptics keep chipping away over the next few weeks, I don’t think Copenhagen will go through. Big lies cause big problems when the authors get found out.
This link works properly: http://a40.video2.blip.tv/5370002464841/CEI-CoolerHeadsEventWithDrRichardLindzenOnCapAndTrade459.mp4?bri=43.1&brs=986
do you still need the video on youtube? I’ve got it split and ready to upload.
REPLY: yes please, I’ll be able to embed it here, and it will get widespread play on Youtube whereas in the current format it will not. Thank you for your efforts! – Anthony
Thanks “therightscoop”, I can’t get the file to download very fast, so I wouldn’t be able to post until this afternoon, but again, I’ll have the video to upload to youtube if necessary, but for now, I’ll wait.
Anthony, here you go. I’ve even created a playlist that you can insert if you so choose. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=22D4DD5727161348
REPLY: Thank you ever so much!
Anthony
Appropriately Doc Lindzen spends as much time educating the viewer on propaganda technique as the actual science. The public needs to hear about repetition, appeal to authority and false logic as much as the radiation budget.
His inclusion of the Eisenhower warning of a federal technology elite is telling and probably more germane than any of the science.
Dear Anthony or anyone who can edit it,
there is a simple way to embed the whole playlist into the webpage.
In the HTML code, simply replace
v/BmGiiNQ0yHQ
by
p/22D4DD5727161348
It’s there twice, and you should erase all the mess that follows “HQ” up to the apostrophe (which should stay there).
The embedded video has the “tape” button which allows you to choose the part, 1 through 6, but it also automatically jumps to the next part when one of them finishes.
Keeping in mind the critical remarks, a.o. from Spencer, Motl and the earlier discussions of the Lindzen Coi 2009 paper her at WUWT, Lindzen entirely destroys the AGW claims and clearly explains not only that the subject has been kidnapped but also how they do it:
Most important conclusions:
1. The entire AGW concept is entirely bogus.
2. AGW is pure propaganda which has NOTHING to do with science..
3. We should all call ourselves AGW deniers instead of skeptics because we oppose a doctrine which lacks the science and gains credibility if it is confronted by people who are skeptic to the theory. Since there is NO CREDIBLE SCIENCE behind the theory, denying the claims is the only logical way to go.
So, I agree, we should deny the AGW doctrine, which at the same time is the best position to fight it.
We don’t deny science, we must always be skeptic to any science.
But we deny the claims made by the AGW crowd.
So, now you can shoot me.
Yes, it’s official – Richard Lindzen is a [snip]. This is pretty much the symbolic drawing of the line in the sand. The big question becomes, who else will cross over from being a mere skeptic to a fully fledged [snip]?
I always enjoy Dr. Lindzen’s presentations, this one is no exception.
I particularly liked his response to the last question. He remarks that people ask him if he is a skeptic, he answers no, that to the degree possible he is a denier, calling someone a skeptic implys that the other side has a reasonable argument, but that you have doubts about some aspects of it. In the this case, the other side doesn’t even have a reasonable case.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe Lindzen as a “refuter”.
My non-scientific take-away from LIndzen: much is happening and has happened in the world’s climactic and weather systems and these multiple datasets and datapoints have been sewn together by people of the alarmist bent into a monster, just like a person who takes a Rorschach inkblot test and sees demons in the ink shape. But to truly discern a logical pattern, if one even exists, you need to have a truly comprehensive and mature knowledge of all of the natural systems that go into creating that pattern. And the state of science today is far from that point of maturity. So the void is filled with an expecially strong dogma and opportunism that exploits this massive gap in understanding. A little bit of knowledge and perpective is being sold as if the scientific community knows conclusively a lot more than it does. I think this summarizes his point. We are being told to see a monster when we can only begin to see an inky mess. And we are being told to sell out our lifestyle, our wealth, our material comforts and happiness to appease this purported creature. And to top it off, it is the ones who don’t buy the monster meme who are told to prove that it does not exist versus the other way around.
W. Earl Allen (09:18:44) :
The Quicktime link doesn’t work even with Quicktime.
It worked fine in Firefox for me. Took a little time to load, but worked.
Please note that the scientific “consensus” view of climate change is a consensus because of the overwhelming amount of scientific findings that defined it in the first place.
I respect Lindzen for challenging the views of thousands of other scientists, but I find it startling that he uses the very same concepts of propaganda, false logic and repetition that he accuses others off here to express his own opinions. The concept of of “ask not what you can do for climate change, but ask what climate change can do for you” seems especially applicable for this scientist.
In the light of the recent inconsistencies found in his ERBE data analysis papers, I wished he would spend less time on his own propaganda campain and spend more on honest scientific work.
Rob
Thanks!
All six parts here, for those who haven’t found them yet and prefer bitesized portion.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Cooler%20Heads%20with%20Dr%20Richard%20Lindzen%20on%20Cap%20and%20Trade&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#
Good presentation. However, he should drop the lazy intelligent design soundbite and stick to his own field, as he obviously does not understand the intelligent design argument (I don’t care whether or not he agrees with it, but at least present it correctly) and thus the resulting analogy to CAGW argumentation is invalid.
Rob (14:04:43) :
“In the light of the recent inconsistencies found in his ERBE data analysis papers…”
Cite please? I’d like to understand what those inconsistencies were.
Rob (14:04:43):
Heck I’d be happy to see a short listing of the “overwhelming amount of scientific findings”.
Mike
On a previous thread about the PDF presentation I postulated that basically what Lindzen did was take the amount of energy coming in as light, and using the ERBE/CERES satellites work out how much energy was leaving the planet as heat, and by subtracting that from the energy in, he was able to work out the forcing of greenhouse gases, paying attention to what the sea surface temperatures were. Is that still right? And how does Roy Spencer’s work counter that. I would have thought that it would complement it.
Nice speech! Good to see he had some sience in there too. Unlike Mr Gavin Schmidt who seems to be travellig the world teaching how to “win us over” instead of discussing the science.
http://www.iccc2009.org/ufiles/ppt/ICCC2009%20Presentation%20-%20Mr.%20Gavin%20Schmidt.pdf
Looking forward to Lindzen’s answer to R. Spencer’s comments on his recent ERBE paper.
I was surprised to see that Prof. Lintzen besides being a chaired professor at a first rate University MIT, also appears to be a “Renaissance Man”.
Rob,
What overwhelming amount of amount of scientific findings? As Lindzen points out – it’s primarily based on models that can’t predict things that we know occur.
As he stated, all of the models predict that given warmer temps, the earth will reject less heat due to positive feedback. The satellite data, with over 15 years of data, shows that when it’s warmer, the earth radiates more heat – negative feedback. That means AGW isn’t going to be meaningful, perhaps not even measureable.
Lindzen is apparently wrong about the negative feedbacks. It appears he made some serious flaws, which Spencer and Motl and others have pointed out.
However, correcting his work does show that the feedback from CO2 forcings are close to 0; much lower than AGW theory claims.
It is significant and telling that the flaws were found by skeptics, and that, unlike the AGW promotion community, skeptics confronted the mistakes openly and dealt with them.
The same cannot be said for the many serious problems in AGW promotion work wheich the AGW comunity has avoided completely.
RE: Mike86 (15:01:23), D Gallagher (15:51:10)
Rob – About that list…
Rob? Rob???