At the ICCC4 conference yesterday, I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Richard Lindzen give his keynote address at the luncheon. As always, he made some very salient points.
I took this photo from my Blackberry and just moments later emailed Dr. Lindzen to ask for a copy of the presentation while he was still speaking. He graciously provided it. and you’ll find the link to it below.
Lindzen_Heartland_2010 (PDF)
Live web streaming coverage at Pajamas Media here for today’s speeches.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FYI – Today 18th May – The BBC Radio 4 Today programme had an item on the conference (sometime in the last 20 mins if you want to seek it out on the listen again). Came over to me as very biased e.g. implying that everyone on the sceptical side of the fence were old right-wingers and Bob Carter was there to sell his book. That said Bob gave a very reasonable interview albeit a short one. Time was, being a Brit, I was rather proud of the BBC and its impartiality; now long gone sadly.
One deeply rational and convincing voice that is unfortunately being drowned by the constant barrage of thousands of “screaming mimis”.
We need more people like the good Doctor, and the known truths must be expressed in short-and-to-the-point layman’s terms so that everyone can understand them. The “kicking dirt” analogy is a great start.
Thanks so much Anthony for making this available.
Jose
Am I the only one having trouble with the link to the live videos?
I only get a 40 second plug and nothing else?
Opening night worked OK though. Both live and a replay overnight.
Thanks
JK
It’s the sensitivity, stupid.
===============
No doubt the sneering and ad hominems will start raining down. Thank goodness for honest scientists holding the line against the dark forces of climate alarmism.
At least Dr. Lindzen is not afraid to call a spade a spade, unlike McIntyre. Maybe we can invent new excuses for why we are winning the debate.
Unfortunately, it is easy to be marginalized when you are on the margin.
Fortunately, logic, reason and the facts are a persuasive argument.
Hysteria and blinkered, agendized groupthink will run its course and gradually, finally the sense of the situation will become evident to enough individuals that a real tipping point will be achieved.
Very clear and precise. I particularly like the graph demonstrating the ‘catastrophic warming’ compared to a single month’s variation in temperature. I also like the scatter graph of temps and the resulting average line that looks most unalarming until you ramp up the scale by an order of magnitude. At that scale, the scatter graph would cover the entire graph and a lot more!
Normalised GMF – z (inverted) appears to be a good proxy for the recorded Arctic Temperature Anomaly (1850-2010).
The GMF-z data (1600-2010) are used as a proxy (initial results, work in progress), since there is no temperature record prior1850.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC3.htm
For more details on the GMF-z and Arctic temperature anomaly see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
I seem to be having problems with the presentation. Many of the pages are blank when I open it. Is there another link for it somewhere? (Thanks in advance)
BTW:
Science Subpoenaed
Comment May 13, 2010
S. Fred Singer
Nature.com
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2787
The link to the BBC radio 4 show this morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8689000/8689038.stm
The libertarian Heartland Institute in Chicago is holding what it describes as the world’s biggest conference of climate change sceptics.
Environment analyst Roger Harrabin examines whether scepticism about climate change is becoming more widespread among experts.
Nowhere in the piece do I hear Harrabin examining anything.
Goodbye impartial BBC, hello spin.
Where do we go from here?
Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves
A Maunder like solar minimum will do the “trick”, Dr.Lindzen. No one can stop it, no matter how “convenient” SSN counts may be. (as recently exaggerated counts).
The idea that atmospheric water is acting as a “positive feedback” to possible warming effects of atmospheric CO2 puts a very small cart in front of a large horse. Space and and time variations of the rates of evaporation, condensation, freezing, and thawing are the horse that is pulling the weather and climate cart in which CO2 rides. These processes affect both the earths absorbtion of the sun’s energy and the energy radiated to space. CO2 does not have a measurable effect on these process rates. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf
If we hear major cries from the bed wetters, I suggest referring them to the written text and have them show their arguments to the written report in writing. The only complaint I hear is based on all warming is from CO2 and since CO2 is changing, all other variables remain constant.
Thanks for reminding us evacuation of ice from the arctic is based on wind moving icebergs.
Replay the conference <a href="http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4" title="videos" , archived here.
kim says:
On this, I think we should all be able to agree…Which makes one wonder why so many “skeptics” spend lots of time arguing such silly things as the greenhouse effect violating the 2nd Law, the rise in atmospheric CO2 not being due to burning of fossil fuels, the radiative effect of CO2 being saturated, and so on. All such arguments do is reduce their credibility.
Dicks address; the file is damaged and could not be repaired. (windows xp)
REPLY: Try saving as a new file name. You had a bad download- A
Here is Lindzen’s dirt-kicking analogy:
“However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt. These days we go even further, and decide that the best way to prevent broken eggs is to ban dirt kicking.”
Living on a farm with chickens housed at the end of a dirt road, I would agree that banning dirt-kicking on this road is a good idea to keep the track smooth to avoid mishaps. Having said that, when one actually examines the empirical evidence, one finds that the dirt road is very uneven and rocky anyhow.
I doubt that A’s dirt kicking would change things at all. It may even change it for the better. Banning A’s activity (or taxing him every time he did it) is premature. We would be better to mitigate the effects of the uneven track – good shoes, alert egg-carriers.
Secondly, in the empirical evidence we find no events in the 12-year historical record (my memory) of such a catastrophe as B crashing into C and eggs being broken. It is purely alarmism to suggest that if this happens then that happens then something catastrophic might happen. However, one reads examples of just this sort of alarmism in the MSM every day.
We need funding to explore the dirt-egg relationship in more detail. Field studies, interviewing of chickens, sensor placement (to detect the actual breakage), and movement-triggered cameras will be utilised. Meanwhile we will tax the crap out of A, B and C. It makes sense to do so as a precautionary measure.
Call me a skeptic.
Thanks for posting this. I am an avid admirer of Professor Lindzen. His points here bear the hallmarks of truth, in that they are both seamlessly simple and eminently logical. He routinely passes the Occam’s razor test.
Cheers!
Unfortunately, Galileo was prosecuted for heresy for his notions of science. The underlying works (his and that of Copernicus) were to remain on the index prohibitorum until 1835, nevermind that he was largely correct.
The question now becomes; has the church of AGW (or the larger church of human secularism in general) more or less influential than the Catholic church of the late middle ages.
They’ll not go quietly, and they have powerful friends.
Those who seek the truth against those who wield power, same as it ever was.
are the conference videos on archive.
REPLY: They will be later -A
We’ve often heard about the great volumes of Grant money for those who stick to the warming narrative…. and I see a quote from Lindzen about how Kerry Emanuel received sudden recognition when he began to do just that.
It would be very interesting if someone in this field provided specific examples of Grant requirements. I’ve read that some (all?) specify that a conclusion of unprecedented warming is necessary to receive funding.
Lindzen has a very clear head.
I’m glad he exists, and that he has the courage to speak out.
Worth to be commented: Snow storm over the driest desert on earth (Atacama):