Lindzen's Climate Sensitivity Talk: ICCC June 2, 2009

Politics is emotional and local (as in each indivual).
Peaple, (individuals) respond to significant emotional events.
Undesired events are met with;
A. Denial
B. Anger
C. Negotiation
and finally,
D. Acceptance
Should Cimate Change result in Cooling, acceptance will occur when peaple find themselves cold, wet, and hungry.
The more dangerous of outcomes IMO.

Margaret Thatcher said: “Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.”
Socialist = AGWer = Sci-babble
What could be more timely, now that AGWers are searching for new labels for the bottles of snake oil.
Pamela Gray is correct regarding seemingly plausible nature of AGW. Although you can’t kill a tank with a hammer, you can kill it with a Molotov cocktail.
It is time for AGW opponents to make their rhetoric incendiary. Stop being nice, be blunt. No more platitudes, say what you intend without any gift wrapping,e.g. the claim that CO2 is a pollutant is a lie, not a mistake or misapprehension. Mocking helps too.

“…global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science.”
Well said!
The mainstream media doesn’t report on the science but rather the alarmist claims of negative impacts. If you only read the mainstream media accounts you would have to come to the overwhelming conclusion that any and all warming has only negative impacts on man and the planet. But I keep reminding people that a little warming is MUCH better than a little cooling!

OT: Editorial: Cooling down with global-warming data
U.S. and world temperature records are compromised by monitoring station errors.
An Orange County Register editorial
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/temperature-stations-global-2433763-heat-watts
If fighting global warming may cost the economy $9.6 trillion and more than 1 million lost jobs by 2035, as the Heritage Foundation forecasts, it’d be a good idea to be sure there’s a sound basis before making such a massive sacrifice.
We’ve noted before that climate change is occurring as it always has, but the claim that man-made greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic temperature increases is based on questionable science and projections. Man’s contribution to greenhouse gases is minuscule. There are some theories but no convincing proof that increased emissions cause increased temperature.
Now another serious doubt has been raised concerning how much of the 1-degree centigrade increase over the past century allegedly caused by escalating emissions has even occurred.
“We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data,” said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado.
The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings were alarming.
They found 89 percent of stations “fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements” that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.
“We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,” Mr. Watts reported.
Many stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.
At one location, Mr. Watts said when he “stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone . . . and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry.”
These influences produce readings higher than actual ambient temperatures, Mr. Watts said. Moreover, the research revealed “major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors.”
These inflated, error-prone, tinkered-with temperature recordings are one of several measurements cited by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence man-made global warming is a threat. But the Heartland study concluded, “The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be ‘the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”
Before devastating the economy to fix a problem that may not exist, we ought to get the numbers right.

Here’s another AGW biased prediction, the NCDC forecasts a sizzling summer for much of the U.S according to USA today with the only truly cool spot being in the north central region. Then I look as WXmaps today and the forecast anomaly for the US over the next week and seeing a lot of average to below normal anomalies forecast for the East and what doesn’t look like sizzling to me in the West, the only real ‘hot’ spot anomaly-wise in North America is Alaska with cooler than normal temps. forecast for much of Canada, no doubt the media will just want to focus on there right now and not much of anywhere else in the country.
Sites like IceAgeNow often show coldwave stories to remedy burnout from CNN and friends feeding heatwave stories to you, you’d go to both (and then there’s this site) if you want both sides of the coin.

Douglas DC (11:13:20) :
Pamela’s Tank remark has some validity.But we don’t need a Tank but a good
anti tank weapon like a Bazooka,shaped charge, a track bustin’ landmine.
You are assuming you have weapons but chances are that you won’t in that case you will be crushed down by those tanks 🙂

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already).
This is it in a nutshell. Sensor data and sensor
performance, which affects data, can be manipulated.
Given the amount of money involved, agenda driven
science, and a willing media, how can you how can
defend against it? Ridicule! Every time one of the pillars
of their argument is destroyed, the people, media and
politicians, must be crushed as well. Anything less, will
have the effect of complicity. I know this sounds harsh,
but this is a high stakes game where our freedom and
way of life is in the balance. They are not going to control
my life….Yours?

Yes. The money. Consensus. Groupthink. Mass hysteria. The Madness of Crowds. Versus the truth.
Scientists, the media and politicians. The three forces in play if you include the totality of activism within the political set and disregard those who fall into more than one, such as celebrities, the Governor of California and the odd (astro)physicist.
Truth. The media don’t know the meaning of the word. They get paid irrespective of what science or politics says or does. Politicians are “economical” with it and exist solely to play with it, fix it around policy and spin it for their “backers” and the media.
The modern-day scientist looks at his fellow players and something leaps out of the morass and hits them in the eye. Lies of Omission, derailment, confusion and obfuscation pay. Well. You too can aspire to the accumulation of wealth beyond the dreams of ancient kings. All you have to do is as thy peers do. Tell a few porkies, fibs and white lies. Exaggerate a little. Smudge some paperwork. Smear a little data here and there. Take a seat guy. Look over there….
Oh so human. Predictable. Tragic.
On the whole, climate science is young. Climate scientists are young. Climate scientists wish to feed and clothe their young. They imagine sending their young to the very institutions that produced them. Do not be surprised when they wish to defend their young, or their ability to provide for them.

The thing that makes the AGW argument withstand criticism is the fact that the theory is combined with a plausible mechanism complete with mathematical equations, computers, elaborate models, funding, and media coverage. With media coverage added to the mix, any attempt to falsify AGW, no matter how well done, will have little power.
This is what I don’t understand. There is an equation that governs how the increase in CO2 effects the absorption lines and from what I have seen, the sensitivity to CO2 is an order of magnitude less than what is claimed from Hansen’s empirical relation. I would really like to know why this has not been presented or at least show me where I am wrong.

“With media coverage added to the mix, any attempt to falsify AGW, no matter how well done, will have little power. ”
So, someone like FoxNews needs to “buy in” and promote this.

George E. Smith (10:09:46)
The entire notion of feedback in the climate system stems from a fundamental miscomprehension in “climate science” of what that term really means and what it analytically implies. They think that any nonlinear response is “feedback,” and constantly seek power-amplifying mechanisms to explain their misconceptualizations. They don’t even understand that power can’t be reused and that independently-powered operational amplifiers are used in control systems to maintain bona fide feedback. Say “impedance” to them, and you’ll get a blank stare.
You’re right. Thermalization of insolation is what drives the climate system. Atmospheric backscattering of LW radiation is a power-redistribution, rather than a power-generating mechanism, and that’s all that’s involved in the “greenhouse effect.”
Got more serious matters to attend to. Keep them honest, George.

“The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.”
For a no-cost PDF copy, go to:
http://www.nipccreport.org/