Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.
March 9, 2017
President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
We note that:
- The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
- It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
- Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
- The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
- Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
- Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.
Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petion (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
Respectfully yours,
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences
SUPPORTING SIGNERS:
Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:
ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).
ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).
BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.
BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.
CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.
DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.
FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).
HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.
HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.
IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist.
LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.
MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).
MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).
MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).
NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.
SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.
SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.
SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.
STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).
WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.
ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); www.ORWW.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.
Original letter here: Lindzen Personal PAOC Explanation-final
Said it before, will say it again….. Anthony Watts is a hero and if I had any say in it the Queen would award him a knighthood. Arise, Sir Anthony!
..Liberal Elites…”We are not amused” !!
Maybe someone should nominate Lindzen for MIT’s new “Rule Breaker” award – official name the “Disobedience Award”.
He won’t get it, but it would be an interesting nomination.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/03/09/mit-civil-disobedience-award/
Maybe call it the “Galileo Galilei Award” ? A.W would also qualify and so many others…
PS:
https://www.media.mit.edu/disobedience/
“You don’t change the world by doing what you’re told.”
— Joi Ito, Director, MIT Media Lab
For too long the bullies in the climate Armageddon business have gotten away with selling their [pruned] through a scientifically illiterate and compromised media . Dr. Lindzen and thousands of honest real scientists have had enough and now the gestapo tactics of the Democrat government and their $billionaire bag men are
no longer backed by the brown shirts selling green .
Let’s hope real scientists can restore the integrity lost because of green wash con artists .
“risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide”
To see these requires a microscope and some imagination.
I believe that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels is not such a good idea. I would like to use AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too flawed to defend. It is all a matter of sceince.
The AGW conjecture sounds plausable at first but upon closer examination it is severely flawed. In part to generate evidence to support the AGW conjecture the IPCC supported the development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of different models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. If there were no guess work then only one model would have been supported. The plethora of models have generated a wide range of predictions for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all prediicted global warming that never happened. If they are evidence of anything it is that the AGW conjecture is flawed. The climate simulations actually beg the question because it is hard coded in that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming so that is what the simulation results show. Because they beg the question such sumulations are totally useless. If the IPCC actually learned something from the simulations they would have by now reduced the number of different models under consideration but that has not happened. Others have generated models that show that climate is correlated to solar and ocean effects and not to CO2.
There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water holds less CO2 then cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additinal CO2 adds to warming. It is all just speculation. Changing levels of CO2 have been a result of climate change and not a cause of climate change.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided by gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect..So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the atmophere keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would other wise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is a function of gravity, the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the depth of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gasses in the atmosphere. It is a convective greenhouse effect and it accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.
Kyoji Kimoto, reporting in an artiicle entitled “Basic Global Working Hypothesis is Wrong” has found that the original calculation of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 is too great by more than a factor of 20 because original calculations forgot to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 wiill cause a small but very signiificant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a Planck Climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, CO2 provides a Plankc climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C which is rather trivial.
Then there is the issue of feedbacks. To make the warming effect of CO2 seem significant the AGW conjecrture assumes that H2O will provide a positive feedback and hence amplify the warming effect caused by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. The idea is that warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere and because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas, more H2O causes more warming and hence amplifies the warming effect of CO2. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface which is some form of H2O to where clouds form and radiate to space. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both LWIR absorption band radation and convection combined. The cooling effect of H2O is also evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is siginificantly less than the dry lapse rate. So in reality H2O provides a negative feedback hence retarding any warming effect that CO2 might have. The H2O feedback also has to be negative for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to evolve.
If CO2 really affected climate than the increase in CO2 over the last 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.
In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has found nothing the would narrow their range of guesses one iota. The IPCC deliberately ignore’s all logic indicating that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really less than their published range for fear of losing their funding. Supporting the AGW conjecture has been a matter of politics and not science. Belief in the AGW conjecture is really anti science.
I have more confidence in our progeny finding a suitable replacement for fossil fuels (when that time comes) than I have in being miserly with them and leaving present humanity to bear the cost.
My greatest concern for future generations is a world government controlling whatever the source of energy happens to be.
I share your hope but those who fail to plan, plan to fail. The Earth’s space and resources are finite and we are already facing problems that are more than anything else a result of Mankind’s out of control population. As time goes on the population problem will become more important yet more difficult to solve. If we do not control our own population then Nature will, catastrophically. Fossil fuels are already becoming more difficult to come by but new developments in technology have probably given us several hundred years more before the supplies run out but they will run out because the supplies are finite. Climate is not a problem that Mankind has the power to solve but human population is. I would hope that humanity can come up with a better approach to population control than war. First we have to recognize the problem before we can solve it.
“Fail to plan” – like the old USSR 5 year plans?
Your premise is flawed by the belief that “someone” has to plan for everyone. My statement earlier referred to a time before government planning was all the rage. What happened was that the supply of Whale Oil was not keeping up with demand, which was driving the cost skyward. What happened (without central planning) is someone found an alternative that was both cheaper and more plentiful. The government did not plan it. The free market took care of it.
Fossil is finite (relatively speaking). As the supply dwindles, the cost will increase. At some point, without government planning (if the government can stay out of the way), someone will come up with an alternative. Right now, that alternative is not cost effective. But as the cost of fossil increases, the alternative will become more cost effective. No government mandate will cause the switch to the alternative. The market will. And the next Rockefeller (not his idiot off springs) may be sitting right next to you. But he is not sitting in government.
Will, as time goes on the population will shrink, if all the nations of the world are allowed affluence.
That is a fact borne out in recent global history.
We cannot afford to deprive the rest of the world the source of this affluence, which is cheap electricity and transportation. Right now that is carbon based. By the time these sources actually become rare, there will assuredly be less population to consume them, if we can break the third world poverty cycle. This is more a political and ideological challenge than it is technological. Meanwhile it is an expectation based on common sense (not merely a hope) that technology will continue to advance based upon necessity being “the mother of invention”. Nuclear can and will see the humanity through until the next energy revolution IMHO.
I never said how planning was to take place.
Remember the whale oil.
Excellent letter by Dr. Lindzen in response to the “usual suspects” letter signed by the MIT climate alarmist crowd that have sold out real science in favor of supporting politicalized science which leads to research funds and grants from a government which has been pushing alarmist garbage under Obama’s reign of terror.
Good for Dr. Lindzen!!
The letter by the faculty has 22 names. Look at the the POAC faculty at MIT – there are 37 members. That means only 59% of the PAOC faculty signed the letter. Not too bad given the normal Lib/Cons makeup of most faculty in academia.
POAC faculty (http://paocweb.mit.edu/people/?type=Faculty%20and%20Investigators).
you must have calculated wrong … 22/37 = 0.97
Forgive me DonM. I should realize that 97% is the right answer for every problem in climatology.
I don’t think so, it looks like 59%. 50% would be about 18, and 4 more to make it 22, and about 8 or 9 more to make it 75% from 18. So, 59 and a half %.
Still for any group to come out of the climate closet is impressive. At a university no less.
What was I thinking, it has to be 97 %.
Million man math.
Sort of impressive that one single university has as many signatories as a whole world of climate d-ers.
“ReallySkeptical March 9, 2017 at 4:31 pm”
Give it up. You make no sense.
Really skeptical, I’ll give you something else to think about. They aren’t the only ones that think that way. Your concensus isn’t as solid as you think it is. The Climate Ship has sprung a leak.
The MIT letter to which Lindzen is responding is the most anemic thing I’ve ever seen coming from the mouths of Warmists. It sounds like they are Depressed, I hope.
This article, “Trump the Weakling,” documents how often Trump folds when opposed. I hope it doesn’t apply to climate alarmism.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/09/trump-the-weakling
MIT professors sent a letter to POTUS using the logical fallacies of argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum to support their argument that man made CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate phenomena.
Moreover, MIT’s letter made bogus claims that droughts, floods, ocean pH and Sea Level Rise trends are dangerously increasing, which are claims not supported by the empirical evidence.
It’s depressing to see professors from one of the world’s most esteemed institutions sacrifice scientific integrity on the alter of research grant funding.
When (not if) this CAGW sc*m is officially disconfirmed, I hope there will be serious repurcussions against “scientists” that supported it even after all empirical evidence clearly showed it to be an untenable hypothesis.
Well done Professor Lindzen.
Your second letter is better than the first. It might have been even better with a few graphs and diagrams. IPCC model forecasts vs actual temperatures, CO2 steady increase vs satellite temperatures, past 1,000 years temperatures.
We are fortunate that he and the other scientists are so brave. Let us hope President Trump responds.
Can someone explain to me how this sort of criticism of “Climate Science” is repeatedly treated as an “attack on science” ???
We have the upcoming events where a number of scientists will be marching to show their support for “science” and the concern that “science” is under threat from the new administration.
But can anyone provide any evidence that anything other than climate science is being “attacked”? (perhaps GM, and anti-va*ers, but that’s scraping the loony barrel).
Why are not the vast majority of working scientists asking themselves what it might be about climate science in particular that gets all this attention? Do they not ever ask themselves if perhaps it really is a PoS?
I read the MIT letter. I don’t know why anyone has a problem with a group of signatories expressing their opinion. Isn’t that exactly what Lindzen’s petition is doing?
Lindzen cites Madison’s caution on letting interested parties judge their own issues. But what does that even relate to? These are petitioners – like Lindzen’s list. They don’t get a final say, so the admonishment is ill-directed.
It seems Lindzen is trying to argue that their opinion should be disqualified in some way. One can disagree with a point of view and still “defend to the death” the right to express it. I hope we all think that way.
barry March 10, 2017 at 6:03 am
It seems Lindzen is trying to argue that their opinion should be disqualified in some way. One can disagree with a point of view and still “defend to the death” the right to express it. I hope we all think that way.
No, Lindzen is simply arguing that the hypotheses involved in CO2-Climate Change have been proven to be very dubious, at the least. And that therefore they do not merit the interest and expense that the United States Government has been promoting and supporting.
But how does Lindzen’s message threaten Free Speech? I ask because so many people still seem to think or allege that if the content of their Free Speech is disputed by Free Speech to the contrary, this mere disagreement threatens their Free Speech Right; when all the contrary Free Speech is saying is that “You are wrong,” not that you can’t say whatever you want to say.
And contrary to what you fear, barry, it has most obviously been the Believers in CO2-Climate Change who want to muzzle the dissenting speech of the Skeptics, not the converse. This desire is almost certainly because the Believers either know that they’re wrong and just want to keep on with a lucrative or psychologically gratifying business as usual state of affairs while they’re “Saving the Planet!”; or that they really don’t care whether what they claim is true and simply don’t want to hear or let anyone else hear anything contradicting their “narrative”, because it is really only a Propaganda tactic in service of a Totalitarian end which itself necessarily involves extinguishing Free Speech!
In other words, barry, “Methinks thy dost Projecteth too much.”
But how does Lindzen’s message threaten Free Speech?
It doesn’t threaten free speech generally. Lindzen seems to be saying these signatories are disqualified from giving an opinion because
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause”
But they are not the judges of their ’cause’ (if any), only of their research. Politicians are the deciders, not them.
Or why quote Madison if Lindzen is not saying that these people should be barred from giving opinion? I think the words “No man is allowed” are fairly clear.
LIndzen judged their research and he is correct. You are the one who brought up the Right to Free Speech.
In other words, barry, “Methinks thy dost Projecteth too much.”
Bravo Richard Lindzen! He fights the good fight.
One Richard Lindzen is worth 50 Kerry Emanuels.
How can anyone that believes in real science argue against that letter? The very fact that is has upset some people proves there is a serious problem as our universities. These critics need to be reminded jobs are not entitlements.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Snowflakes are Staffing the EPA
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/climate-science-on-trial-snowflakes-are-staffing-the-epa/
I got a solicitation for funds today from Boston Children’s Hospital — a world renowned institution and well worth our support. The point of this reference however, was that they provided a small separate “data sheet” with pictures of 5 or so of the 10 volunteer Therapy Dogs which they employ to both comfort the afflicted children and to provide some good vibes for the staff. The EPA might put out an appeal for volunteer Dogs to sooth the staff — a good number of whom may be searching for gainful employment in the next fiscal year.
LOL, maybe they can all become dog walkers. I don’t know how much demand there will be for corrupt ex-EPA bureaucrats.
Well done, Professor Lindzen. I know there is a lot of “institutional pressure” to make the “correct” analysis of what the data says. It takes courage to stand up to those that would turn real science into political science. It was never meant to be so, and every step down that path must be fought with relentless vigor.
Here is another one of your colleagues who has take the “path more travelled”, and found what he was looking for. And if the data didn’t support his pre-determined conclusion, then the data must be “adjusted” until it did:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/worlds-oceans-warming-13-faster-102500107.html
This evening, Al Gore appeared on the PBS News Letter to pitch his new book, “The assault on reason.” I congratulate and thank Mr. Gore for siding with reason. However, I have to point out to Mr. Gore that his position on global warming is not reasoned. If he is open to reasoned debate on this issue I’d be delighted to participate on the opposing side..
Terry, Gore is a well known advocate, you aren’t even close to being known by anyone, so why would he even consider arguing with you?
David:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In a reasoned debate, the renown of the participants is irrelevant.
Correct Terry, Gore considers you are irrelevant, and as such, you are.
David:
You have changed the topic of debate from Gore’s contention to me. This is an example of an “ad hominem argument.” The understanding of philosophers who have studied this kind of argument is that it is illogical, How do you respond?
David:
Your response of March 13 at 6:30 pm amounts to a capitulation. You are evidently unable to defend Gore by means other than citing his renown. He is a graduate of Harvard College, former U.S. Senator, former Vice President of the U.S., blah, blah, blah.
Pretty simple Terry, Gore will not waste his time with you. He might debate someone like Scott Pruitt, but nobody knows who/what you are.
Terry, no capitulation at all. Get back to me when you win a Nobel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize
.
.
.
Until then, all you are is some nobody posting on WUWT.
David:
You support my point through resort to an ad hominem argument.
.
You mean the same one that Obama won for doing nothing?
Guess all you have to do is fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Terry, I don’t care what you think, All Gore doesn’t care either. The fact is, you are irrelevant. If you disagree, please provide evidence that you are relevant.
David:
Evidence in regard to the issue of man-made global warming I would be glad to provide. Evidence in regard to the renown of those who engage in debate over this issue is, however, irrelevant.
Terry is relevant to me, and others here. Perhaps in your haste to denigrate him, you misspoke. What you meant to say is that he is not relevant to YOU. Which is fine, you are not relevant either.
In the eternal battle between truth and power, there have always been those who have sided with power and they have often profited from taking this position. Based upon profit-seeking behavior one expects to observe this phenomenon again and again.
Since you are unable to provide any evidence that you are relevant, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that you are irrelevant.
David:
Your conclusion is inconsistent with logic, however, In reaching this conclusion you redefine “logic.”
When and if you can provide concrete evidence of your relevancy, my conclusion might change. Until you provide evidence of your relevancy, my conclusion is sound. You are not relevant.
David:
The phrase “evidence of your relevancy” is an oxymoron. Under the scientific method it is not the renown of a person that is relevant but rather is the observational data that is relevant. We check the claims of persons against the observational data independent of the renown of these persons in determining whether the claims of these persons are correct. In the conflict between Galileo and the Vatican, it was the Vatican that was more powerful but Galileo who was observationally correct.
Terry, your inability to provide a single item of evidenc that you are relevant proves my point. Thank you.
Terry, can you provide me with one observational data point showing your relevancy?
You have to have an argument to begin with, which algore does not. So no, he would not consider arguing with anyone. His life is based on the avoidance of debate.
Oops, Gore’s book was published a decade ago.
What is your point?