Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Via the GWPF, an essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.

It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).

The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity. Unfortuanately, Lindzen and Choi (2009) contained a number of errors; however, as shown in a paper currently under review, these errors were not relevant to the main conclusion.

According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation, as we have already noted, by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming (viz Schwartz et al, 2010), and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

References:

Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.

Douglass,D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.

Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.

Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-1722.

Schwartz, S.E., R.J. Charlson, R.A. Kahn, J.A. Ogren, and H. Rodhe, 2010: Why hasn’t the Earth warmed as much as expected?, J. Climate, 23, 2453-2464.

Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advidory Council

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JeffT

Dr. Lindzen,
At the end of the third paragraph, you write, “That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Your meaning seems to be that corrupt members of the climate science community are modifying data to reach their desired ends, when they should change their models.
But earlier in the same paragraph you also write, “Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data.” In that sentence, aren’t you proposing to discard data simply because it disagrees with models and with your desired ends? You seem guilty of the same crime as those you accuse at the end of the paragraph.
[REPLY: Dr. Lindzen points out that there is “a profound sampling problem” in the data. ~dbs, mod.]

Anthony Hanwell

Para 3 line 5 “something wrong with the data” Am I missing something or is it sarcasm or a typo?
[REPLY: Dr. Lindzen points out that there is “a profound sampling problem” in the data. ~dbs, mod.]

James W

Beautiful! I was thinking to myself the other day that I would ike to see a reasonable “State of the Science” article. This is it.

PRD

Amazing. This is just a great post by Dr. Lindzen. It will be sent to all the warmista’s I know.

but who will read it outside the sceptical blogs?
Not a chance that any senior UK minister will read it, let alone understand it.

latitude

Looking at this from a biological point of view…
…why are CO2 levels so low?
Why do CO2 levels crash?
Why is the planet so good as sequestering CO2 and not replacing it?
Why have elevated CO2 levels been followed by ice ages?
Modern plants evolved when CO2 levels were in the thousands ppm.
CO2 levels as low as 250 ppm have been shown to greatly reduce growth
in some plants.
This “science” started when CO2 levels were at the lowest recorded on this
planet.
Instead of coming up with some hair-brained way to lower CO2 levels,
we should be worried about why those CO2 levels were that low in the
first place.

latitude

woops
Dr. Lindzen, I forget to tell you what a great article that is!

Sun Spot

Impressive and Definitive, this will cause much thrashing around by the CAGW body as Mr. Lindzen has decapitated the snake.

Beesaman

Excellent article. What we need is the equivalent to Martin Luther’s nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door (I know there’s no evidence that he actually did nail them to the door but it is a good mental picture).
We should be pointing out the modern culture of ‘Green Indulgances’ being handed out to the select few.
Maybe we need to have a few enlightened scientists nailing a few AGW rebuttals to certain University doors under the full floodlights of the media pack. How about starting with the University of East Anglia?

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta

“That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”
Classic.

Policyguy

It is also a reasonably accurate portrayal of the current political situation of the various parties, groups and nations. There is much at stake to maintain their current positions in the face of an uncooperative climate. Thank you Richard

Masterclass.

Alex

Scientifically excellent work and nice paper.
However, it is to complicated to be understood by a non-scientist layman. It is essentially useless for communicating a politician…
I hope, Dr. Lindzen finds a talented spin doctor to promote his point.

William Abbott

This Lindzen guy; he’s just a denier. He’s a shill for big oil. Where’s MIT anyway? Muskogee IT? I think Dr. Lindzen is a chiropractor or something. He hasn’t proved AGW isn’t happening. He needs to shut up. No respectable REAL scientist will waste their important time refuting his stinky, red herring, arguments.
REPLY: This is so over the top, I must assume it to be sarcasm. Remember to use /sarc at the end of such communications. – Anthony

Mike Haseler

However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.
Wealth and development is another way to say greater energy resources to devote to problems which usually means “fossil fuel”. The increasing availability of energy has a far far far better correlation with GDP than temperature and CO2, yet almost no one ever mentions that they are correlated and therefore GDP is likely to be a direct result of energy usage rather than other nebulous concepts.

TheFlyingOrc

“Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.”
I am absolutely in love with this quote.

This seems to be the same article that you posted on July 26, 2009.
Ooops. No. This has has been slightly changed. This one now adds: “Unfortuanately, Lindzen and Choi (2009) contained a number of errors;”. Progress, I suppose.

sean boyce

Elegant. Simple. Accessible. Readable. Excellent.

MDJackson

Absolutely brilliant!

Curiousgeorge

Simple question. How do you propose to “educate” the ignorant masses and change the political reality? Do you have access to mass media that will do the job for you? do you have a cadre of lobbyists who will accost the politicians? Blog posts won’t accomplish the objective. This isn’t about science. It’s about public opinion and political power.

stupidboy

What was the state of science in 1531? The Oronteus Finaeus map is quite well known but in the light of AGW it’s interesting to be reminded of it:
http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2011/01/oronteus-fineus-map-of-ice-free.html

Game, set, match.
Bravo, Dr L!

Northern Exposure

Wow, what an excellent read from the ever concise and to the point, Dr. Lindzen. A true breath of fresh air amidst all the poisonous toxic propoganda being tossed around by the other side.
Thanks for that, Anthony.

Art.
I remember that Lindzen and Choi were criticized by R. Spencer, but his results from CERES were very similar – a voluptuous negative feedback.

mikemUK

Very interesting, particularly the latter part.
AGW proponents continually ridicule the notion of a ‘global conspiracy’, and try to use it as further ‘evidence’ against sceptics.
It is only when you break it down into the various apparently disparate interest groups who each stand to gain something they want, that it becomes clear that any formal conspiracy is unnecessary; they’re temporarily united by self-interest.

That was well stated by Dr. Lindzen. It is insanity to consider the projections based on increased CO2 levels as reliable or meaningful. I look forward to the day when we can look back at this as a period of growing up.

Theo Goodwin

Concise, clear, to the point, and very direct. Absolutely brilliant. Thank You, Dr. Lindzen. Thank you, Anthony.
Now watch the flood of ad hominems from the Warmista.

Jeremy

I particularly love the last two sentences.

Neo

What do you expect when you have politicians horning in on the apocalyptic disaster business of the clergy ?
Funny how politicians with no connections to organized religion have no problem with the mixing of state and religion when it suits their ends.

jack morrow

***** Thanks.

I hope all the climate scam-mongers are reading this. Dr Lindzen manages to get his point across concisely and without making any exaggerated claims, indeed he even owns up to some errors in his 2009 paper. And by doing so, he makes the rest of what he says so much more powerful. A masterful lesson in how to do real science and communicate it.
No wonder Trenberth suggests that “climate scientists” not engage skeptics in a debate about the science. Him and his ilk would get beaten seven ways to Sunday if they came up against the intellect displayed here. To repeat Dr Lindzen’s own words
“That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

James Sexton

Thank you, Dr. Lindzen. Once again, you are clear, concise and logical in your arguments. I’ve been saying for a while now, that enough time has passed. We can now test these wild claims and predictions of doom to reality. It has been over 20 years of this nonsense. I’ve a child that has never known a day that the impending doom of the arctic was imminent. It hasn’t happened. It isn’t going to anytime soon. The rest of the predictions, they haven’t come true either. It is time to turn the page on this scientific debacle.

1DandyTroll

So, essentially, Dr Lindzen, yet again, prove why them climate hippie boneheads, who’re portraying themselves as being right and sceptics wrong, are in fact utterly and completely wrong at the same time making this great flaunt of a show, like only a proper scientist can create, how right he is.
But isn’t it somewhat easier to the poor sods eye sockets to say: I’m here, never fear, you begone, ’cause you putts are wrong. :p

Bob Shapiro

“…positive feedback… means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures.”
I’ve heard this many times, and this seems to be the one pillar supporting the CAGW theory. However, this theory is illogical.
If there is a positive feedback, then for any increase in global temperature, there is a further increase in temperature during the time period being examined. But this increase becomes an input for the following time period, causing the positive feedback to raise global temperatures yet again. And yet again, ad infinitum. So, under the theory of positive feedbacks, a global temperature increase for whatever reason – CO2, land use, or “natural” – results in a scorched earth.
An analogous argument can be made if the global temperature were to decrease, for whatever reason, with the result that we would have an ice cube earth.
Somehow, according to CAGW Alarmists, we magically are at the perfect global temperature today, but if we “allow” the earth either to cool or warm slightly, earth ends. That earth was at a different “perfect” temperature 100 years ago, or during the LIA or MWP, can’t be explained once we accept positive feedbacks.
The theory, logically, is nonsense! While we still can search for other anti-CAGW arguments, this is the basic message which we need to hammer home.

pax

In climate science, errors in papers are always “not relevant to the main conclusion”.

CRS, Dr.P.H.

“The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
Hah, it astounds THIS generation, or at least, some of us!
Thanks, Prof. Lindzen, nicely done!

Scarface

Thanks, Prof. Lindzen! This is it!
A rebuttal of AGW that is a classic one, from the moment it was published.

jorgekafkazar

Beesaman says: “…What we need is the equivalent to Martin Luther’s nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door.”
I don’t see any equivalent. Church doors are out of style, having been replaced by Associated Press and other leftist propaganda organs. Even the Vatican was revealed in WikiLeaks as willing to use its influence to promote AGW among its flock. Churches just aren’t what they used to be. We need a bigger, better door.

jorgekafkazar

Bob Shapiro says: “…If there is a positive feedback, then for any increase in global temperature, there is a further increase in temperature during the time period being examined. But this increase becomes an input for the following time period, causing the positive feedback to raise global temperatures yet again. And yet again, ad infinitum. So, under the theory of positive feedbacks, a global temperature increase for whatever reason – CO2, land use, or “natural” – results in a scorched earth.”
The increase in temperature is logarithmic with GHG concentration, so you reach diminishing returns very rapidly–four or five iterations of the process you mention. No scorched earth. But the water feedback is negative. so no worries in any case.

pesadia

“What is conceived well is expressed clearly, and the words to say it with arrive with ease.” Nicolas Boileau.
The clarity of thought combined with the enunciation is breathtaking. Dispassionate dialectic worthy of a master of equanimity.
At some point (hopefully in the not too distant future) this essay may well be viewed as the epilogue to this errant scientific debate.

Peter Dunford

pax, you highlight the prime RealClimate defence of Team errors. But for the devil’s work of the deniers, the likes of RC would damn a “denier”‘s paper as fatally flawed if just the word coun[t] was wrong. MISTAKE!

Keith Wallis

Perhaps Dr Lintzen himself could clarify the part “that something is wrong with the data”, but the way I read it is as follows:
It is posited by the climate models that there should be greater warming in the tropical upper troposphere (the ‘hotspot’). That there isn’t is damning of CAGW, not in that the upper troposhere data is incorrect, but that “it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large.” In other words, the trend of the tropical upper troposhere is indeed greater than the surface, but that’s because the surface data is artificially high.
There’s dozens of posts, and thousands of comments, on WUWT on this very point as to why. UHI, flawed homogenisation, insufficient metadata and other data compilation issues are all well-documented.
There’s no contradiction or hypocrisy in what Dr Lintzen is saying.

Theo Goodwin

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
January 17, 2011 at 2:44 pm
“The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
“Hah, it astounds THIS generation, or at least, some of us!”
We live in an age of hysteria. Someday there might be some great books explaining it. In addition, there are powerful forces that do everything they can to fan the flames of hysteria. Whether those forces can be brought back to earth is an open question.

Horace the Grump

A question I would like an answer to is…
Why is the current climate the best of all possible climates to have?
It seems that the climate alarmists and their ilk have determined that the current climate (whatever that is) is the best one to have and will do anything to stop it changing…
Anyone have any thoughts on this??

H.R.

wOw!
My favorite:
” Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.”
Again, wOw!

Ivan

Antony HAnwell:
“Para 3 line 5 “something wrong with the data” Am I missing something or is it sarcasm or a typo?”
It is not a typo. The atmospheric physics predicts that the tropical troposphere should warm much faster than the surface, irrespective of what has been the cause of warming (Sun, CO2, internal variations etc). Since the satellite and weather-balloon data (much more reliable that the surface data) show actually less warming aloft than at the surface, the most plausible assumption is that the surface trend is greatly exaggerated (having in mind all kinds of urban heat island problems, a poor network maintenance in the Third World countries and so on, this is quite expected).
And note that this is extremely damaging to the AGW alarmism; if the surface trend is really artificially increased by half or more, then all the model projections that are tuned to the reported surface trends are also off at least by half.

Dr. Lindzen.
Thank you for a concise, well argued and detailed rebuttal of the constant flow of AGW nonsense, After twenty years the empty threats are looking very threadbare. I hope that this text floats before the eyes of some of the world’s decision makers and that the eyes are open and connected to the brains. This is the antidote to all the poisonous and toxic propoganda from AGWfanaticism.
Thanks for that, Anthony.

lawrie

Thanks for the article. But how to get on the front pages? As Dr. L stated there are too many with a vested interest. All the publicity in the world will not persuade some half as much as a continued cold spell or in our case more rain. I note that the current warming hiatus will recommence in 2015 but should the solar cycle and PDO continue to deliver cooling then the beast may be dead at last. We must keep a record of all the forecasts based on AGW. None of the dire predictions made by the team have come to pass yet the MSM keeps revisiting the false prophets without once asking “what happened to your last prediction?”.

Scott

JeffT says:
“You [Dr Richard Lindzen] seem guilty of the same crime as those you accuse at the end of the paragraph.”
JeffT, you need to read the article more carefully. I understood Dr. Richard Lindzen was being sarcastic when he said: “Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. ”
He goes on at the end of the paragraph to say: “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

I always enjoy Richard Lindzen’s articles, posts, and especially presentations. For those who haven’t watched them there are a number on YouTube. They’re worth the time.