Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.
Let us hope that President Trump acts quickly on Dr. Lindzen’s request.
If anyone you know claims the climate debate is over, show them a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s petition.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good news. Lets see if Trump follows through.
The big problem is Ivanka. I believe that she is hanging over the fence. I would like to see her have a sit down with Roy Spencer and Will Happer.
Since sisterhood is powerful, how about with Judith Curry and Sally Baliunas?
“The big problem is Ivanka. I believe that she is hanging over the fence.”
Why? Because you read it in the New York Times?
This new paper concludes that the human CO2-input is only just over 4%. Here is the link:
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.02.009
Martin Hovland, that paper on CO2 was demonstrated to be completely wrong years before it was even written. The author apparently did not bother to read the previous easy-to-understand rebuttals of the previous papers making such claims. Here is more info: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/oh-no-not-again/
Is Kenji on the list. How do you spell the dogs name?
Hardly dogs.
Think of it as the skeptic iceberg coming out of the waters as proverbial [political] salinity levels go up, showing for all to see that the 97% “consensus” so cherished by the alarmist establishment is no more than a mirage generated by an ice free Arctic… 🙂
I am confident that President Trump will put a break to that bullshit?
[But you add a question mark to your declaration? .mod]
Are there any Nobel Prize winners on the list?………..
Like Hussein’s?
Or Mann?
or Trenberth
Like Al Gore and what about Bill Nye?
Nobel Laureate Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever should be. He says he’s much more famous for opposing CACA than for his prize-winning work on superconductivity.
I note that world-renowned aerospace engineer Burt Rutan is also missing. The petition organizers still have a lot more co-signers to collect.
As Einstein once said in response to 100 authors against Einstein, “if I were wrong, one would be enough.” This is not a numbers game. Science is on Lindzen’s side. Unfortunately we are dealing with politicians not scientists. So they have to play the numbers game.
Kenji qualifies as a climate scientist easily. Being a skeptic requires to be human and many other things.
Good list. One or two weak links, but not a lot of ammunition handed to the opposition.
I was invited to sign, but I figured I’m too much of a lightning rod. My signature would have given them an excuse to attack the whole petition. So instead, I wrote and wished Dr. Lindzen well with his petition.
w.
On the one hand I think you should be on the list as the work you’ve done is serious and follows the scientific method. That said I can see your point and agree with you on it. I hate having split brain on issues.
Good thinking Willis and you choose the team over your own chance for a few moments in the lights. Good man.
Sorry, but I can’t follow your reasoning, Willis. “Lightning rod”? Can’t that be said, to varying degrees, of all signatories simply because they signed? Isn’t Lindzen himself one? Yes, reactions will be mixed but, on balance, signatures add clout. Yours especially. Above all else, it’s the response of the addressee that matters and I can’t see him heeding mindless attacks just because your name is there. He’s demonstrably too smart for that!
Lord Monckton signed Willis, he’s also a lightning rod for greens.
Very true W. While you are very credible it would have had an averse effect.
An indictment of the warmist movement though, that you had to consider your position.
Willis
I think that you made the right decision. Have you seen the recent Hale 2017 paper on the Carbon Cycle. The Abstract looks very interesting, but since I have only seen the Abstract, I have not formed a view on the merits and strength of arguments. Perhaps it is something for you to get your teeth into. I know that many readers of this site (and your site) would be interested.
See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
PS. I have posted the Abstract in my comment set out at February 25, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Willis, keep up the good work.
Yet another paper that seriously questions the validity of IPCC assumptions around CO2 has been published here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
“Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”, by Hermann Harde, 2017.
Short summary of this paper here:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/25/blockbuster-paper-finds-just-15-of-co2-growth-since-industrialization-is-due-to-human-emissions/#sthash.B7MvJ0Xa.dpbs
Key conclusions: “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”
“Lord Monckton signed Willis, he’s also a lightning rod for greens.”
Monckton lacks the humility to make the right choice. He has a self importance typical of the British aristocracy.
Congratulations to Willis on making a wise and humble decision. The quality of the signatories is more important than the number and need to be people with classically recognised credentials, not controversial bloggers with no formal training, as Willis correctly recognises.
Sadly, I find the wording of the petition and letter rather weak though to the point and focusing on UNFCCC is probably the most effect and fastest remedy, as suggested here by the legally competent ‘ristvan’
@Greg
“…the signatories…need to be people with classically recognised credentials…”
Fair enough. Presumably only those people have been invited to sign. But shouldn’t those credentials be displayed in all cases? Some are not. Roger Bee is the first one.
Willis
Sensible move. You would definitely be a lightning rod.
Donald Trump appears to have the attention span of a gnat and is very unlikely to read through the list. Therefore, though I understand the purpose of the Alphabetical listing, from the attention span point of view and in order to make the maximum impact, I would have put the 50 most credible people first. Those are likely to be people with classical and relevant degrees or those with first hand experience in working for/running an appropriate and relevant organisation.
tonyb
Thank you Richard Verney and others for citing this paper by Hermann Harde.
In my 2008 icecap.us paper, I cited two relevant papers by Dr. Jan Veizer et al. There appears to be similarities, based on a quick scan of Harde.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Veizer, “Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle”, GeoScience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005
http://www.gac.ca/publications/geoscience/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf
Ferguson & Veizer, “Coupling of water and carbon fluxes via the terrestrial biosphere and its significance to the Earth’s climate system”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, Volume 112, 2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
I have long felt that Jan Veizer was “miles ahead of the curve” on this important question.
The mainstream CAGW debate between the skeptics and warmists is about ECS – is it low or high? Both sides may be wrong, since CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
This observation suggests that global temperature (among other factors, which could include fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc.) drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Cart before Horse? 🙂
Best, Allan
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Hermann Harde
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
Highlights
• An alternative carbon cycle is presented in agreement with the carbon 14 decay.
• The CO2 uptake rate scales proportional to the CO2 concentration.
• Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.
• The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
• Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well-reproduced.
• The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
• Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
Abstract
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
richard verney and Allan M.R. MacRae.
Prior to about 1945, the natural sources of CO2 were higher than our emissions. CO2 actually increased by more than our total accumulated emissions since 1750 Since 1945 human emissions have been higher than the CO2 rise as the natural sink rate has increased.
–> 1850 –> CO2 rise to date 6.8 ppm; total accumulated human emissions to that date, 0.61 ppm
–> 1900 –> CO2 rise 16.1 ppm; total accumulated human emissions, 5.7 ppm
–> 1945 –> CO2 rise 31 ppm; total human emissions, 26 ppm
–> 2016 –> CO2 rise 123 ppm; total human emissions, 199 ppm
@ur momisugly Willis, I’ll not second guess your decision.
I will say that your declaration here may even be better than a signature.
@ur momisugly Greg, Monckton of Brenchley won’t wither under the stones you threw. Those who considered his principled positions and asked for his assistance, did not consider yours, nor extend to you an invitation (nor one to me.)
@ur momisugly tonyb, You denigrate a man’s attention span and claim he lacks experience, or the ability to run a large organization and yet, that man has built a successful and lucrative worldwide business organization and with his entry into politics, just displayed the acumen to listen to the advice of a team he selected and proceed in a manner which won him the presidency of the USA.
You, on the other hand…
“Donald Trump appears to have the attention span of a gnat …”
You appear to be silly, big shot ; )
Alan said to me
‘You denigrate a man’s attention span and claim he lacks experience, or the ability to run a large organization and yet, that man has built a successful and lucrative worldwide business organization and with his entry into politics, just displayed the acumen to listen to the advice of a team he selected and proceed in a manner which won him the presidency of the USA.
You, on the other hand…’
I merely said he had a limited attention span. You completely made up the rest of the words you have attributed to me . Why would you do that? I said nothing of the sort.
My point was that, as can be seen on twitter he is a mercurial character whose attention flits about. He is very unlikely to read all the way through a petition of this nature-he must get lots of them on various topics. He might flip through the first dozen names though. My point was that it would be best to market the petition better by putting those with the strongest credentials at the top.
tonyb
Bill Illis,
Not sure what you are saying to me. Looks like the old Mass Balance Argument, with which I am officially agnostic.
In any case, my following statement, repeated from my above post, allows for a wide interpretation of this issue:
“This observation suggests that global temperature (among other factors, WHICH COULD INCLUDE FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION, DEFORESTATION, ETC.) drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.”
I am NOT saying that the increase in CO2 has no manmade component. We just do not know enough about this issue, unless we make certain simplifying assumptions that may or may not be correct.
The CO2 satellites do not seem to show much of a fossil fuel urban component in high CO2 concentrations. From the satellites, it looks mostly natural.
Regards, Allan
You continue to be a class act. As you have been since I began reading what you have been presenting to the world! Facts should never be lightening rods. The just are!
tonyb – I wouldn’t jump to conclusions based on Trump’s tweets. There is method behind what appears to be at times madness. He has consistently attacked the media, and there is a good reason for that. If he is taking on a fight, I’m sure he knows by now fights incur a price and I don’t believe he would fight unless there is more to be gained than lost.
He is very resilient as he has demonstrated against a wide array of foes, some even in his own party. There is a huge force pushing the status quo many of us rail against. It will take some fighting to free ourselves of the globalistic oligarchy. The pain is worth it!
They’ll do it anyway.
@ur momisugly tonyb, I stand corrected.
After seeing the first part of your post, I had scanned quickly through the rest, in disgust. “…with first hand experience in working for/running an appropriate and relevant organisation.” Having now re- read your quote in context, it’s apparent that you weren’t also directing that remark at POTUS.
I’m the one with limited attention span, especially before the coffeepot has started its work.
Nevertheless, I agree completely with JohnKnight.
“Donald Trump appears to have the attention span of a gnat”
Evidence?
“I merely said he had a limited attention span.”
Whereas you have an unlimited attention span, silly? ; )
You’re too modest Willis, your signature would have substantially improved the average level of the signatories qualifications.
@Pauly and Richard Verney:
That ScienceDirect paper which says the human contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is 4.3% is close to the 3% figure the IPCC gave us (and the EPA acknowledged) years ago (back in 2001 I think).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/
All,
That ScienceDirect paper… needs to get into the dust bin as fast as possible. It is a harrasment to the skeptic case as it starts with the same basic error as many times before: it is all based on the residence time of ~5 years, which is how fast any CO2 molecule, whatever the origin, in the atmosphere is exchanged (“swapped”) with exact one CO2 molecule from another reservoir. That doesn’t change the CO2 amount of the atmosphere with one gram.
That says absolutely nothing about how fast an extra shot CO2, whatever the origin, above the temperature controlled equilibrium is removed from the atmosphere and ends in the oceans or vegetation.
That needs much more time (~51 years e-fold rate) than simple exchanges…
It is the same difference as looking at the throughput of a factory (capital and goods turnover) and concluding anything about what the gain or loss will be…
I am discussing that at Notrickszone
Correct Christopher “MOCKTON” in the list…
Weak links? Do you mean like Bill Nye?
Has this already been sent? His statement that more are signing every day suggests that it hasn’t. If not, some minor editing is needed, starting with the first sentence.
It appears that Dr. Lindzen’s letter has been sent, but, that he is informing President Trump that the attached petition is in flux. Trump can, thus, if he chooses, go to the petition and see the latest version which is changing daily.
So, the letter is correct as written.
Janice, read the first sentence out loud. Unlike a lot of petitions, this one has the potential of making serious impact. It should be as polished as possible. : > )
Dear Mr. Slayton,
Please re-read my comment. It addresses only the “signing every day” concern you had. I did not comment on your second concern, editing such things as, “support of your.”
You have sharp eyes. Good catch.
Dr. Lindzen should run his drafts by you (and…. then…….. you can let me look over your list of suggestions for Lindzen, (ahem — smiling), just in case…..).
#(:))
Sincerely,
Janice
Janice,
You make me nervous with that Mr. stuff. Takes me back to Fort Dix. Juan sounds better (and anyway civilians outrank majors).
Regarding the petition, I just wish I were qualified to sign it. I’m afraid linguists would be looked down upon by the 97%. And I hope Willis changes his mind.
Dear Juan,
How nice to hear from you again. 🙂 You, such a loyal, conscientious, well-informed, WUWT supporter, deserve the honor of a “Mr.”. You also deserve to have your wishes respected, thus, Juan it is!
See you around!
#(:))
Your WUWT friend,
Janice
P.S. My credentials would be a “weak link,” too. Yours are more then mere credentials, though, you have demonstrated repeatedly that your linguistic training and native language ability are first class. I can see Willis’ point (and I noticed several other names missing….). I can also see the opposite view. Good for him to be true to himself. And good for you to so kindly cheer him on and encourage him. You are a class act, Mr. Slayton.
Janice, (I used to proof read tech manuals) I also spotted the odd construction in the first sentence but let it go. But Chris Monckton won’t like being listed as ‘Mockton’. 🙂
Is it time to do a new “Oregon Petition”? 30,000 signatures makes a much stronger talking point.
The CACA carbonieri have managed to ignore or pooh-pooh the original Oregon Petition, but it’s still as valid as ever.
Para#2, Line 4.
“…have, and will continue to cause…”
Oh dear! Please change to
“…have caused and will continue to cause…”
Note the absence of the rogue comma!
I hate rogue, commas!
I have comma rogues.
How good it is that this community of smart, diverse and open-minded individuals a cheerful mini-debate on punctuation can take place without digressing from the core issue of scientific integrity.
Brent Hargreaves, I stand to be corrected, but I do detect a hint of sarcasm in your comment! Is there a problem with rendering the submission more professional by applying a bit of spit and polish to its content?
Graham, no sarcasm from me. Many of the posters on WUWT are articulate people with signs of being well-read as opposed to the narrow joyless monomaniacs in the uebergreen camp. Jarome’s “I hate rogue, commas” is a witty little aside.
i use hyphens and ellipses these days…
william shatner made me commatose once; i was scarred for life
but jeez- a grammatical error that would get red penciled in jr high english class starts out the petition?
just say ‘oops’ and fix it. do not try to pretend illiteracy doesn’t matter or that those with standards triggered a flight to safe spaces.
(and no, muphry didn’t bite me and i don’t have an ee cummings fetish. my little finger doesn’t get along with the shift key and i don’t care cuz i’m not writing to the president of the usa, mmk?)
It appears that the most important need of all Americans is for the POTUS to sign an Executive Order stipulating that henceforth, ….. all written commentary and/or verbiage of a scientific nature, context or content, regardless of when or where it is published, must be composed and written by a Lawyer or team of Lawyers to insure that there is no possibility of anyone, anywhere, ….. 1) bitching about the choice of words or their order of usage; 2) misunderstanding what is being claimed or stated; or 3) being confused about what the ell they are reading.
Then everyone will be happy campers and the discussion of the “subject matter” can continue uninterrupted by “kibitzers” who think their “pet peeves” are more serious than a “heart attack”.
I have a parcel of rogues, Burns edition.
How does a comma go rogue? Did it get to friendly with the semi-colon?
It is plant food not poison.
The “Plant Food” term makes me cringe. Somewhere there’s a “Climate Crock of the Week” where that Sinclair guy has Monckton saying “Plant Food” over and over again in his wonderful aristocratic tones. Something along the lines of saying that Carbon Dioxide is the basic feed stock of all life on Earth might be a little bit more encompassing.
Chlorophyll: – C₅₅H₇₂O₅N₄Mg
Lignins, Amino acid, Anthocyanin, fatty acids, amino acids, esters.
ALL are based on ORGANIC chemistry, with minor atoms of nitrogen, magnesium, potassium, sodium etc etc etc
But BY FAR the major part of the structures are made of CARBON, OXYGEN and HYDROGEN
The whole world is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY DEPENDENT on those three atoms…
…. which are invariably sourced from CO2 and H2O
whoops forgot to do the subscripts…
… , I meant from CO₂ and H₂O
Sorry, Steve. No problem with “plant food”. None at all. It rocks. It’s understood universally. In an instant, it knocks the lights out of the brain dead claim that it’s a toxic gas.
Steve,
What is wrong with “plant food”? That’s precisely what carbon dioxide is. Plants and other photosynthesizers split water molecules apart, attach the hydrogen atoms to CO2 atoms, making glucose (C6H12O6) or other sugars, ie plant food, and release leftover oxygen atoms to the air or water for us animals to breathe.
ok… how about Plant Crack?
Thanks for all the replies. Here’s Peter Sinclair’s “CO2 is Plant Food” crock:
[I’ve tried posting this twice and I think the YouTube link the Perter Sinclair’s Climate Crock of the Week is what’s making my post just disappear. So you will have to Google the “CO2 is Plant Food” Climate Crock of the Week for yourself ]
And if you do:
You can count how many times he has Monckton saying “Plant Food”. He does it because the term is easily made fun of. The Green Mafia knows how to use ridicule and they do it well. And conservatives continue to let them do it and define the terms of the argument.
Yes, we are a carbon based life form and every carbon atom in our bodies was once CO2 in the atmosphere. Here’s a little graphic to illustrate why that is:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/erets1.jpg
However true the term “CO2 is Plant Food” is, I guarantee the left will make fun of it.
Enough already, Steve. Monckton repeats “plant food” ad nauseum. So what? How does that demonise the term? As for alarmists getting cranky, what’s new? I can’t see your suggestion, “Carbon Dioxide is the basic feed stock of all life on Earth”, going down a bomb. Any audience would switch channel before you’re halfway through!
As it turns out I’m not the first to use the phrase, “CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth,”
See Watts Up With That:
Guest essay by Allan MacRae June 13, 2015
Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature
I will not comment on the current draft of the petition, which seemed adequate when I read it.
I will comment on Richard Linden’s past writing style, which I found worthy of praise years ago.
Richard is not only brilliant, he is also courageous. Back when only a few were willing to speak out about the deeply flawed “science” of global warming alarmism, Lindzen spoke out, and he did so with ringing clarity and great courage. Bravo Richard!
I still re-read with admiration the excerpt of his 2001 WSJ article below, and suggest you do so as well.
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/lindzen-understanding-the-ipcc-ar5-climate-assessment/#comment-1441028
I greatly admire Richard Lindzen.
Not only does he make sense, but the man writes like an angel.
Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal, 2001:
Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support the Kyoto Treaty
By Richard S. Lindzen. June 11, 2001
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
“The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge — and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.”
******************************
Richard S. Lindzen: “The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document.”
Allan: “I greatly admire Richard Lindzen.”
WR: Me too: Richard Lindzen wrote those words on June 11, 2001(!): “The Summary for Policymakers is [specifically directed at policy] ”
I have my doubts about the ability of ‘science’ to keep her scientific integrity. 16 Years passed since he wrote that words. Science should realize that it has not been able to correct what was going wrong. In fact IPCC (‘Government’) had manipulated herself into a position that she could manipulate the public opinion by suggesting that the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ represented the full IPCC report and even worse: that she represented ‘full [climate] science’. ‘Science’ did not correct what she should have corrected. A structural failure.
16 Years have passed. It is time to finally end up this scandalous situation that is at the detriment of whole societies. Who wants climate science to be real science should welcome this petition.
I do.
Moderator: If you have the time, please insert the word “with” in this sentence:
“Lindzen spoke out, and he did so WITH ringing clarity and great courage. Bravo Richard!”
Thank you..
[Reply: You’re welcome. -ModE ]
Thank you Wim, an excellent post.
I assume you are in Holland, and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I truly enjoyed my visits to the Netherlands and especially your outstanding art museums and the Dutch countryside, which was beautiful.
I will be even more condemnatory of the IPCC and the global warming alarmists, as follows:
I have known since about 1985 that global warming alarmism was a false crisis, unfounded in scientific fact.
Since about 2002 I have been convinced that it is a fraud, based on deliberate falsehoods.
When someone says “the science is settled”, you know they are not being truthful. Science, and particularly climate science, is far from settled.
The Mann hockey-stick papers, starting with MBH98, were never remotely credible – “Hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature trick”. splicing dissimilar datasets, etc. What a farce!
Furthermore, the Climategate emails proved the extent of the fraud and identified some of the leading fraudsters.
Global warming alarmism is the most costly scientific fraud in the history of our planet – it has caused society to squander trillions of dollars of scarce global resources, damaged energy systems, and cost many lives.
I have published the following statements since about 2002, and all have proven correct:
1. “Green energy” is not green and produced little useful energy.”
2. “Green energy relies upon life-of-project subsidies.”
3. “Cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of society”
4. “When imbecilic politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.”
Best regards, Allan
An interesting addition to the letter would be a link to the 31,000 scientists and engineers that have already signed a similar petition.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Bravo, Dr. Lindzen.
Let the ad hominem smear games begin.
There is a site called Change.org that collects online signatures to send the President. Professor Lindzen should start one there for this. It is primarily a liberal site, so it might cause some stir.
Thanks indeed to Dr. Lindzen.
I do wish he had emphasized that he was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the IPCC Second Assessment (1995) and a Lead Author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” of the IPCC Third Assessment Report ( 2001). You don’t really get more qualified to judge the value of the IPCC exercise than that.
Side note: I’m really not sure how to take the presence of a signatory “Christopher Mockton”. It’s a good laugh in any case.
Let’s hope 300 credentialed scientists and engineers “trump” Ivanka.
Typo: Monckton, not Mockton
Yep. That’s what I was referring to. It’s in the signed petition as Mockton.
.. Lee L.
List of HEROs.
For those of you who now look down and see your own nakedness, good news; sign up and you may hide in the list of heros. GK
As I read down that impressive list of petition signers, I just kept shaking my head in amazement, thinking, “Wow. WOW. This is something, this is really something.”
Not only do all those credentials silently thunder, “LISTEN TO US. WE KNOW,” the depth and breadth of the knowledge of those signing is of such great magnitude that the only response of a sane opponent to such an army is:
Oh. Crap.
Cue: “But they’re not Climate Scientists! ”
(Though some of them are.)
Yes, RoHa, no doubt. Once again, they will “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”
Freeman Dyson’s signature counts at least 100.
I might agree with you but the mainstream scientists include Tom Karl. His record is far greater.
He would show you if his computer hadn’t broke.
Better yet, withdraw from the UN entirely and throw that worthless organization out of New York.
Baby steps…. 🙂
An interesting and well-worded initiative. Refreshing too.
It will be interesting to read the climate-scientist version and their counter-letter-petition pleading for a permanent hand positioned in the public pocket to see whether or not Lindzen & Co are correct or maybe not.
Just look at tge placards of scientists’ marches. That’s all they have.
Don’t forget they have their white ‘lab coats’, those are issued by the protest organizers to improve credibility.
Frankly, my “black lab’s coat” is far more significant, not to say more useful in the winter. “Let the fur fly”. /sarc off
I thought all the “climate scientists” working for the government were invited to move to France.
The only words I know in French are: “bon appetite!” (Maybe the French government will at least feed them.)
Rocky Road…..
OK, so here’s another important one for your “climate scientist” friends: Au Revoir
“Adieu” not “Au revoir”. The latter means “See you again”.
Bon chance!
Why is there no place for new signatures?
Mr. Dewhurst: I think it is because Dr. Lindzen is coordinating it privately, i.e., no open sign-up as there is with the Oregon Petition (another great one). Those whom he has invited are, apparently, still stepping up to sign daily.
Anthony: Can you publish a contact e mail for Richard Lindzen, so people like Mr. Dewhurst can find out how to apply to sign the petition?
Just Google |contact Richard Lindzen| and follow the first link to http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
I have my web site tuned so people can use Google to contact me similarly.
The above link yields an invalid / out-of-date email address.
Here is one that works:
rlindzen@mit.edu
I have contacted Prof Lindzen and he says he has forwarded my name so that it can be added.
One needs to control a petition such as this because the warming theory supporters will jump in and add fake names etc. to the list to reduce it’s credibility. They have done this before
A “great cloud of witnesses” is cheering you on, dear warriors for truth in science:
(L->R: Kirby, Pasteur, Newton, Carver, Maxwell, Kepler, Boyle, Bell)
We are so proud of you (and they must be, too)!
And they are watching to see what you will do.
You know who you are…..
***********************************************************
NICE JOB, LINDZEN!
You rock!!!
Janice,
your list (L->R: Kirby, Pasteur, Newton, Carver, Maxwell, Kepler, Boyle, Bell) can’t be real scientists…
… they’re not wearing white coats & carrying placards saying ‘Give ME more grants’ & they didn’t hide their data.
A strange assortment of basic and applied scientists, lifted from the anti-scientific ICR. Kirby collected insects and Bell was a surgeon, from a family thereof. As most Americans know, Carver was an ag products researcher. But four or five of them might be on most lists of ten most important scientists and at least one definitely would be at or near its top. Few if any however needed enough courage to rate as heroes. Newton kept his heretical unitarian beliefs secret.
On second thought, Sir Isaac did show courage in resigning his senior fellowship and Lucasian professorship at Trinity (!) rather than take the necessary holy orders in the Anglican Church, key tenets of its doctrine which he could not accept. It worked out well for him in the end, however, as he left Cambridge for London and a government job as director of the mint, not requiring ordination.
Newton’s theological writings are enormous, at more than a million pages, possibly much more, so there is plenty of room for interpretation on his undeniably Unitarian views (although some 19th century historians tried to defend his orthodoxy).
Sir Isaac has been accused of being an Arian heretic or worse (Keynes, who bought his papers, saw him as practically Jewish), and might well have been early in his scriptural studies on the nature of Christ. But, after reading the Early Church Fathers, it appears that he ended up, while still heterodox, opposed mainly to the doctrine of consubstantiation rather than being a more thoroughgoing Unitarian, like the Deists among the US Founders and Framers, who objected to the divinity of Jesus. This group includes, among many others, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe and both John and Abigail Adams, as well as Lincoln, whom his wife called “not technically a Christian”.
http://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/Arian_newton.pdf
It is quite possible that those who have come to the conclusion that Newton was either “orthodox” (Biot, Brewster) or an Arian (More and contemporary scholars) are simply interpreting his position in light of an inadequate framework of options. More illustrates this kind of framework:
The anti-Trinitarians can be classed under three main divisions: the Arians who denied that the Son was coeternal with the father, though he was begot before time began and by him the Father created all things…the Socinians who believe that he did not exist before his appearance on earth, but that he was an object of prayer; the Humanitarians, or Unitarians, who believe him to be a man, and not an object of prayer.
It may be that in the early 1670s Newton himself wrote out of a similar framework and saw the Arian position as the most consistent. It seems clear, however, that by the 1690s (or if Westfall’s dating of the Clark MS is right, by the 1680s) his trinitarian study was sufficiently nuanced so as to have adopted the homoiousian position over and against both Athanasianism and Arianism.
Rather than squeezing Newton into the standard seventeenth century schools of thought on the trinity, I am suggesting that the key to his thought is found in the broader categories of the fourth century upon which he had developed an expertise, specifically among those, like Eusebius, who held the homoiousian interpretation of the Nicene Creed, with which Newton was now obviously quite familiar and sympathetic. If the Newton historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have found it “a blot on his record” that Newton was unwilling to join Whiston’s attempt to restore “primitive Christianity” or to defend him when he was ousted from Cambridge, perhaps it was, after all, not due to Newton’s being “all too human” but because he believed Whiston, as an avowed Arian, had pushed his subordinationism too far.
Newton was neither “orthodox” (according to the Athanasian creed) nor an Arian. He believed that both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation. He was convinced that his position was the truly biblical one, in which the Son was affirmed to be the express image of the Father, and that this position was best represented by those Bishops at Nicaea who held the Son to be of the same kind of substance as the Father but not numerically the same. Newton may still be considered heterodox, but in light of the evidence of his theological development he may no longer be considered an Arian, that is to say, a heretic.
Gloateus,
Science is a method, not a set of beliefs that you, or anyone else, dictates must be accepted, lest one be anti-scientific. Honest.
To this list I would Michelson and Morley, great experimenters who upset the leading paradigm of its day (the ‘aether ‘) because fact beats theory, and they sought the facts. Wonder what they would say about climate science today…
Global Garden Gets Greener
NASA Earth Observatory
(June, 2003)
* * * * * *
Earth getting greener due to rising carbon dioxide levels, global snapshot shows
(Australian Broadcasting Corp, April 2006)
“The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in this time has increased by 18 million square kilometres — about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).”
* * * * *
Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth
(PNAS, January 2010)
Sean M. McMahona,b,1, Geoffrey G. Parkera, and Dawn R. Millera
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3611
* * * * *
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
(CSIRO, July 2013)
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
* * * * *
Greening of the Earth and its drivers
(Nature, March 2016)
“We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%).”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
* * * * *
Accelerated plant growth: it’s the only “forcing” you can confidently measure.
Thanks for those links, they are driving my watermelon FB followers to “unprecedented” levels of dissent. 🙂
I got un-friended by many FB friends I actually know and banned from FB because of my views on climate change. In discussions about climate change and CO2, when I mentioned “Ideal Gas Laws”, gravity and mass, they ran away and un-friended me.
I’m sure that to the uninitiated
PV=nRT
means pervert.
This from our comunist ABC? I’m flabbergasted!
They’re just trying to scare everyone.
Lots of people from other countries on that list. Sweden. Norway. But I think he really needs to get more people from Russian if he wants to influence Donald Putin.
Ah, skeptical… You haven’t really fallen for that CNN-sponsored (and hence the DNC) red herring fallacy, have you?
Wow, so being a climate kook infects all areas of thinking. Who would have thought it could be that bad? I wonder what came first, the brain damage or the belief on crazy climate?
ReallyDilusional
Trump Isn’t Sounding Like a Russian Mole
ReallyD<underscoreelusional
I found the letter, but where can I get a look at the petition?
click on the box the letter is in (above) and then you should be able to scroll down.
Keep scrolling the letter to see the list of signatures
This is to Anthony and/or Eric,
Why don’t you do a post asking WATTSUPWITHTHAT readers from all over the world to send letters to Trump supporting the Lindzen petition. You may want to prepared a standard letter that we could all copy to our own letterhead. I wonder why Dr. Curry’s signature was missing?
+10
Ronald Abate,
A letter such as you suggest will go to a large secure building and tested for many things but the scientific worthiness of the ideas will not be one of those. If your wording suggests you are a bit nutty, your name will go on a list you might prefer not to be on. If your comments suggest you are favorable toward DJT or Republicans, your name and address may get sent to the Republican National Committee and you may receive a solicitation (please send money).
Your letter may get you a 1 digit increase in a tally that becomes an entry in a briefing book where a large number indicates letters from “deniers” (now crossed out and “skeptic” inserted) and another indicates “believers.”
After that, your letter becomes biomass to help heat the capitol building.
Some of the above might, maybe, could be true.
Whatever does happen, Mr. President will not see your letter.
I agree, but if thousands of similar letter, or tens of thousands that may make a difference. I have no idea how large the readership is at WUWT, but I assume it is quite large. Anyway, just a thought.
Where is the list? I see only a black box in this blog. I do not find it by Google? Is it secret?
The black box under the text below Dr Lindzen’s photo contains the petition and all signers by scrolling.
Maybe an issue with your browser?
My secure Firefox doesn’t like it. Insecure Firefox on another machine displays it. Midori doesn’t like it. Ubuntu browser displays it.
The American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society and the Association for the Advancement of Science will act proactively to Excommunicate and seek financial Retribution on those listed. Obama still has many Vietcong among the US Federal Government and many sympathizers in other countries especially European.
Well , I always thought a scorched earth policy on ones political enemies is the best course of action.
Pull their funding, let them swim on their own for a bit.
The sharks in the real world of commerce don’t care about your opinion,just working results.
Hope Anthony signed?
Trump is predisposed to this anyway, so he very well may get us out of a horrible just horrible deal.