Josh livetoons the 2018 Lindzen lecture – which demolishes climate claims

Our intrepid cartoonist, Josh was at the GWPF sponsored Richard Lindzen lecture, and has this to contribute. If you have not read it yet, WUWT carried it a couple of days ago:

Richard Lindzen Lecture at GWPF: ‘Global Warming for the Two Cultures’

Josh also recommends this article from James Delingpole “…who I sat next to while drawing these notes on the brilliant GWPF annual lecture given by Richard Lindzen.”


35 thoughts on “Josh livetoons the 2018 Lindzen lecture – which demolishes climate claims

  1. SEA LEVELS: I’m waiting to fill my boots… I (sic) may be some time

    Perhaps “It” instead?

    Otherwise, very good, Josh!

    • the use of “I” is, I think, a reference to one Titus Oates of Capt Scott’s doomed team on Antartica. While they were waiting in their tent to freeze to death he famously said something like “I need to step outside.” Followed by the immortal line, “I may be some time.” And, of course, never returned.

  2. Among those who dutifully report what they do not understand are journalists/activists such as Nicole Mortillaro officiating for the CBC:
    In her latest agitprop fear mongering about Jet Stream, quoting the career alarmist Feltmate and the ever present Jennifer Francis.
    Poor Nicole should at least once in a while check jet streams at and learn how to debunk Francis theory.

  3. Politics, money, peer pressure and the lying, fact-free, fake news media’s censorship (BBC) have completely corrupted science. Climate change has turned science/engineering/economics into full time bullshit factories.

    The Radiative Green House Effect theory contains a fatal flaw.

    For RGHE to perform as advertised requires the earth’s surface to radiate upwelling LWIR as an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity at 16 C, 289 K, 396 W/m^2. (TFK_bams09)

    The contiguous presence of atmospheric molecules participating in non-radiative heat transfers through conduction, convection, latent renders impossible such BB LWIR, the effective surface emissivity being 0.16, i.e. actual 63 W/m^2 / ideal 396 W/m^2.

    The LWIR upwelling 396 W/m^2 does not exist – the 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop “warming” the surface and atmosphere does not exist – and the global warming and climate changes that are attributed to carbon dioxide do not exist.

    Three decades of careers, books, papers, research, seminars all go straight in the trash bin and the trillion-dollar climate change industry is instantly unemployed.

    No big deal, just some minor changes.

    Hey, what can you say? It’s SCIENCE!!! Have any yourself? Bring it!

  4. The ABC interviewed Mr Lindzen on 11 Oct (in Australia) and, paraphrasing, was informed that in his opinion there was no problem with the little warming since the Little Ice Age.

    They then had David Karoly on and his first comment, again paraphrasing, was that everything that Lindzen had just stated was wrong. He then proceeded to prove that his Armageddon-view of the state of the climate was true using the ‘highest temps ever recorded over the last few years’ mantra without any reference to how large the increase has been, nor that temps have been increasing since the LIA. My cherry tree is just in flower but he seems to have found some ready to pick.

    One would have thought that any 2 climate-savvy scientists would have some areas of agreement, regardless of their overall opinions of the future of climate. For Karoly to immediately dismiss everything that Lindzen had explained is a sure sign that he has a misplaced sense of his own importance and knowledge.

    Unfortunately for Australia (and the World), Karoly is in a position to influence our gullible, spineless politicians.

    • People still watch the ABC? I haven’t switched on commercial TV in years except to watch the footy or cricket (if I want to snooze in the afternoon). I’m sure the average punter doesn’t give a proverbial tinker’s about climate change, so they’re only preaching to the choir.

      The ABC needs to be weened off the Government teat.

    • Karoly is a self important climate bashing little prick who’s probably fantasizing about getting laid by one of his wide eyed uni students while he points to the sky yelling ”My end is coming” …I mean… the end is coming!!!!”

    • I watch the ABC and had never heard of Karoly and had to look up who the hell you were talking about. So I am saying not very famous at all 🙂

  5. The fact that Karoly simply dismissed all Lindsen’s points is proof in itself that he has no rational or logical argument refuting any of the points. Zero, NADA, Nothing! The technique is familiar – If you have no real argument that will work, simply shout louder. When that happens Lindzen’s points are made.

    • Karoly is a nasty small minded man who will shout down anyone in a debate. He will just sit there, literally, shouting “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” I have to admit I deliberately do not tune in to anything on the ABC regarding climate. It is vile and nearly induces vomiting, esp when the likes of Karoly get airtime. I will admit, it has been a while since Karoly was wheeled out on national TV with all the recent hype in the Aussie media about the latest “We have only x years to save the planet!” reports from the IPCC.

      Sadly Turncoat shafted Australia when he shafted Abbott. And Morrison shafted Turncoat, not a bad thing IMO. But with all this political gobshyte and knifing that’s been going on for 10 years or more voters who really can make a difference won’t bother leaving Australia to lean even further to the left.

  6. Lindzen stated
    “Because the density of air decreases with height, the buoyant elements expand as they rise. This causes the buoy- ant elements to cool as they rise, and the mixing results in decreasing temperature with height rather than a constant temperature. ”

    Weinstein stated
    “It is the pressure drop with increasing altitude that causes the temperature to cool (adiabatic cooling),”

    If both of these are true it seems to support the gravity theory of the greenhouse effect as espoused by Dr. Nikolov and others.

    • The problem for Nikolov’s thesis is that clouds do warm the surface at night time vs no clouds therefore back radiation exists.

      The problem for the GHG theory is that the earth has never experienced runaway local warming with monsoon events that force more water vapour.

  7. Only rich people are advocates of carbon dioxide reduction . There’s your cocktail party response

  8. Richard Lindzen stated in his lecture:

    So be warned, what follows will require a certain amount of concentration. Evaporation from the oceans gives rise to water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor very strongly absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared. This is what we mean when we call water vapor a greenhouse gas. The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the surface to heat, and, as in a heated pot of water, convection sets on.

    Moist air rises in surrounding drier air primarily because its specific weight [kg/m3] is lower. Water vapor H2O has molecular weight 18, nitrogen gas N2 (80% of dry air) has 28, oxygen O2 (20% of dry air) has 32 [g/mol]. Therefore a bubble of water vapor will rise in surrounding dry air, hence there is no need for any greenhouse effect to induce convection of evaporated surface water.
    Correct me if i’m wrong.

    • There’s no need for evaporating water to fuel convection. A sunny morning heats the ground, which heats the air and once the temperature inversion is washed out, convection mixes with higher air and allows the wind there to come down ground level and morning breezes are the result.

      OTOH, wind blowing over warm ocean evaporates water, and warm, moist air (given several other condition) can cause such strong convection that a hurricane forms.

      • Ric,
        0K but also the convection mechanisms you describe (sun-heated land, wind over warm water) do not involve nor require a greenhouse effect. So i don’t see a greenhouse effect as being relevant for convection to be brought about; contrary to Lindzen’s lecture where it seems to be presented as the engine for convection.

  9. Lindzen stated

    “In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specializing in abnormal psychology.”

    Of course he was referring to the Australian response to the IPCC .

Comments are closed.