This is a letter professor Richard Lindzen of MIT sent to the Boston Globe and was published today. It is well worth the read.
KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present.
The claim that everything other than models represents “mere opinion and speculation’’ is also peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.
Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate description – at least for scientists supporting such alarm.
Richard S. Lindzen
Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
My keybord can do this: °C and this: §@ç¢èê~üÜöéöÉÄä£$# but not the Euro-sign.
Alexej Buergin.
Just copy this one €
@mazibuko
Personally I’d like to see someone come along with some really powerful points in favour of AGW, plus any other hypothesis. There is really no telling what to expect of the environment, it is all so poorly understood — that’s the message I get from reading WUWT and the comments.
That’s really the only reason I became an AGW sceptic — if the scientist-politicians had stuck to saying “we’re really being tentative here, but CO2 might be a really big problem…” I’d be fine with them. It was the moment they claimed, “the debate is over!” that even I could see it was something they couldn’t possibly be that certain about.
But once you say, “the debate is over”, you’ve just killed the science and now we know even less.
Robert, here’s a question for you, how much more would the science know today if they had been free to pursue multiple independent hypothesis?
Peter of Sydney,
That looks very much like a ‘science is settled’ type claim. People have to be careful here. The science is not settled either way. AGW might well be wrong in some of the things is claims, but it does not follow that everything is wrong, or that it is a hoax or a fraud.
By the way, note he says “at the moment”. The models may get it right at some point. This whole thing may be a time of development for them. We should not abandon the attempt to model. We might get it right. But even if we get it wrong we may learn much in the process.
And Peter of Sydney, that looks very much like a “science is settled” type comment. People should very careful about becoming the thing they criticise. AGW might be wrong in some of what it says, but it does not follow from that that everything it says is wrong, or that it is a hoax or fraud.
mazibuko (20:41:22) :
I admire Robert. He disrupts the choir here, preaching happily to itself about how right it is, how purely objective it is in the pursuit of truth, unlike that other, nefarious opposing choir.
We all have our own opinions and beliefs. Now if you asked what has started the cooling of the planet then you would have fractured debates about that.
Peter of Sydney (00:04:33) :
So, the science is in AGW is a hoax at best and a fraud at worst.
You have no idea how much science in many areas are in the same boat. But careers and reputations are at stake. Following the same science without question has created many scholars who are brain washed to be focused on garbage.
How would you feel following the same science area for 25-30 years and finding in the end your focus was wrong?
Lindzen.
Lindzen is in person the difference between science and activism.Lindzen is a man with honor.Thats an endangered quality these days.
Flying over France in the morning with low cloud cover , one can see where the fumes of the factories coming above clouds and opening the sky around them.
So reducing natural cloudcover and opening a bit of the sky will add heath to the earth.
“Paddy (14:04:02) :
……..
Dr Lindzen is German. He takes names and makes lists. Don’t worry, his day will come and his revenge will be sweet.”
Most Brits on reading this would be reminded of an all time classic comedy scene ‘Don’t tell him Pike’. Well worth another look;
cheers David
Michael Moon.
I’m confused, Surely when you commision a new guage or instrument , the first procedure is to calibrate it against a more accurate instrument traceable to national standard, the second is to evaluate it’s reproduceability and inherent variance with a capability test. I mean that’s what you’d do if you were producing nickel and dime fasteners for the Auto or Defence industries, let alone producing data that influences trillion dollar global spending commitments. Either the gauge reads right with an acceptable variability or you don’t use it.
davidmhoffer (21:22:39) :
I read a lot of disagreement amongst contributors here. Neverthless, the premise that c02 causes global warming is open to contention: It is this that has never been measured or verified, yet this is the principle that has seen an enormous propaganda campaign from the IPCC to NASA, the Royal Society and a broad consensus. When the properties of c02 are measured under laboratory conditions, the argument that it causes warming falls flat on its face. It is an intensively studied gas. Yet this vast machine that puts the blame on climate change on Anthropogenic c02 has popular backing because it “goes after people” (Lindzen) and a lot of finance can be made through exploiting guilt. One has to vilify something in order to make money from it. Call it guilt money if you might.
The non scientific or sociological foundations are actually much older than the way science has been contorted to fit it. An early poem by Mandeville in the 18th century gave emphasis to this. (the fable of the Bees). It is an exposition of how vice, fraud, greed, envy could be expolited and cultivated for the sake of wealth and mercantile success, and even scientists will sell their integrity to the highest bidder
Alexej Buergin
Have you tried $
Robert (13:22:28) :
Yeah, and if any decent programmer had twenty years to tweak a model; it had better be damn close, or out he would go!
kim (18:14:59) :
Robert, whatever you do, don’t use that app. It’ll rot your brain.
==========================================
Too late.
harvey (20:41:30) :
“I’m as big a skeptic as you all here, but I am not as naive as many here seem to be.”
Harvey, I wonder about your self labeling as a skeptic. Maybe, maybe not. But that polemic you posted was nothing but greenie propaganda. From their conclusion:
As I understand it, the changeover from CFCs to replacements made a lot of money for companies, from chemical companies to A/C manufacturers. And the link you provided claims the Montreal Protocol, passed in 1987, fixed the problem just in time to avert disaster. But in fact, 2006 saw the biggest ozone hole ever: click
After reading your link a second time, I stand by my assessment @20:24:02.
In a discussion with a world class biology researcher friend of mine about AGW, he asked me how i knew which scientists to believe (as he knew I don’t understand the science but am a skeptic and have been for many years) and now i have an answer: …………………..because I LOVE them!!!
It’s a fairly new trick, Smokey; I’ve run across an increasing number of alarmists who claim to be skeptics, then push the usual alarmist claptrap. Heh, probably from their iphone apps.
============================
Michael Moon (12:30:02) :
If you have a link to the story on thermistor cable degradation, please reply with it. I gather through your words that’s about AMSU intruments or is it from another type of sounder? Would love to read it. Can’t seem to Google it, web or news, zero found.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer Denier is fine by me. I deny the existence of a lot of things. I always like the Asimov quote:
Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
“Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
— Isaac Asimov
Johnnythelowery, that’s called confirmation bias and it is evident on both sides of the debate. Worryingly, many people only seem to be sceptical in relation to science that doesn’t support their opinion.
NOAA uses both statistical and dynamical models to predict weather under El Nino conditions. The dynamical models (some), include global warming parameters and some do not. The statistical models are just based on what happened before under similar circumstances. None of the models are based on the confluence of a negative AO occuring under El Nino conditions. That damn AO is a tricky dick. There does not appear to be a way to predict its occurrence in the future. It has been monitored since 1951 I believe. No real pattern that indicates long term positive/negative phases. Basically, NOAA would do well to say that under a positive AO, El Nino weather patterns are kind of predictable. They should add that if the AO goes deeply negative, during winter, all bets are off.
The author says “Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present”
I just thought I would show what he actually said. Shorthand answers can so often distort the intent of the original.
G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
harvey (19:52:04) :
“Somehow I see too many parallels between what is happening right now with AGW and the good ol’ ozone hole”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
“Atmospheric scientist Charles Jackman and a team of researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Hampton University in Virginia recognized a rare opportunity to gather further proof that solar storms destroy ozone.”
Do you mean that it turned out to be ‘The Sun’ that was destroying the ozone layer? Yeah…I see lots of parallels.
1) We have an observed phenomenon
2) We search for a man made cause of this phenomenon
3) We find something man is doing that roughly correlates
4) We blame it on man
5) We holler and scream until man makes a sacrifice to atone for his sins.
Not much has changed since the days of tossing virgins into volcanoes.
john pattinson (06:39:40),
If you are implying that the MWP was not global in extent, or that it was not warmer than today, you need to get up to speed. Both of those presumptions have been discredited.
Here’s a staring point: click1, click2, click3
If you need more citations, there are plenty available.
Robert, you seem to be a one-song singer. Since 1989, what other weather and climate parameters were in tune with temperature changes besides CO2? And I am serious about this. I am talking about Easterlies, Westerlies, MJO’s, Kelvins, oceanic oscillations, atmospheric oscillations, precip, IR balance, etc. Does your app list those? Based on your understanding, how does CO2 affect each of these parameters? You cannot ascribe CO2 as the direct cause. It is an indirect cause that then triggers (and it must powerfully do so) something else that is a powerful weather and climate driver. And then that something else has to survive all the other natural drivers. Please explain.