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.
Richard Holle,
Thanks, I was not necessarily attempting to explain all the nuances of why the “hole” exists. I was only attempting to point out some foolishness in the anthropogenic theory. Primarily that the low levels measured during the last 30 years or so are perhaps not unique and that there is little evidence that global concentrations have changed much.
WWIII
Not Knowingly no…:-)
General Question:
I’m confused about the suggestion (Michael Moon : Wayne) that there would have to be retroactive adjustment to an instrument record. Either a gauge R&R exercise and the regular retesting and re-calibration protocol shows the instrument remains capable, reproducable and reliable, traceable to national standards or it does not. If yes, no adjustments required. If no, use @rand for more reliable results.
This isn’t just to do with changing metering technology. Should you replace one instrument with the same type, make and next sequential production serial number, capability of reproducibility, reliability and variability should be proven and documented before its used “on-line”
Confession : Was once a Quality manager for an Automotive and Defence tier 1 company, and still has a mania about instrument qualification….:-)
Random Question : How much of HADCRUT , GISS and GHCN would be left if you were to exclude any station that did not have a continuous, systematic history of gauge calibration. re-qualification, and corrective action ? 🙂
and why wouldn’t Lisden say this? Look who, besides MIT, is signing his checks:
He is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.
[Reply: I have a feeling you’re going to receive an education. ~dbs, mod.]
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
Look at who’s signing the climate alarmists’ checks:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
And the final result.
You asked for an education. Report back tomorrow, after you’ve read the links.
………….Johnnythelowery (05:18:36) :
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!!!
…………………Mark (06:12:01) :
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……..
MARK Darling: I jest. Very few even now know how hollowed out AGW has been found to be. Besides the sheer professionalism of your skeptical opponents here on WUWT and their clinical ability to show the bogus nature of the sloppy Science of the AGW industry, the failure of CRU to honor their moral and legal obligation to fullfil the FOI requests said it all. AND STILL DOES!
Reply to johnnythelowery
What professional right does a biologist have to talk about climate change? Its like asking a brain surgeon about rocket science. They’re both very complex fields filled with intelligent people but who have as much in common as I do with a attractive women. Case and point Svensmark forgetting to take orbital decay into account, a mistake that was at best sloppy and at worst deliberate falsification.
Still no body discussing the science, just conspiracies as if the government isn’t also medical research and a hundred other fields.
Doug Badgero (15:52:24) :
Richard Holle,
Thanks, I was not necessarily attempting to explain all the nuances of why the “hole” exists. I was only attempting to point out some foolishness in the anthropogenic theory. Primarily that the low levels measured during the last 30 years or so are perhaps not unique and that there is little evidence that global concentrations have changed much.
My reply:
To attempt a legislative solution first, with out knowing the driving mechanisms behind the production, maintenance and destruction of Ozone, was what was done, CFC’s are gone, the holes every winter remain, their production and duration still under the total control of UV radiative forces , combined with the cyclic, but currently slowly ebbing strength of the global magnetic fields.
CO2 will be the same story with any reduction resulting in lower food production for the masses to consume, while the wealthy elite still eat what remains of endangered species.
When the next Ice age does come, these same elite, continuing with these same type policies and methods, will have eradicated most native peoples of the tropical zones of the world, bought the land and moved in while controlling immigration of the unwashed masses, that still survive.
The swine flu H1N1 scare sets the stage, for the further future release of lab engineered diseases, while tightly controlling the release of the “expensive” antidote for the cleansing of the tropics prior to moving in, and for back door protection from “unwanted” immigration from the more polar regions.