Dr. Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.
He served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University and was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT. Dr. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called “climate alarmism”.
Rather than picking apart the arguments for or against said climate narratives, our conversation is largely focused on the question of what would motivate such alleged deception were it found to be the case.
Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: / demystifyingscience
AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics / @materialatomics
Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S
PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he’s not in the film studio, he’s exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities.
- Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog
- RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss
- Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD
- Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y
He’s a brilliant man that should be listened to.
Yes, but not for 2:48:27. Way too long. I bailed out at 0:05.
Yes, too long even at 1.5x speed. From ~ 07:00 to ~12:10 is a good listen.
As a Lindzen groupie, I was disappointed that it didn’t make it to three hours. Something like when Willis segues to the weather and the usual request.
Absolutely.
The title of the podcast, Manufacturing Consent, is also that of a documentary about the ideas of a probably more brilliant man, whose politics are disgusting.
The man in question is Noam Chomsky. The full title of the documentary is, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky And The Media. IMHO, he is, or at least has been, the world’s preeminent linguist. He shut down B.F. Skinner’s asinine ideas about language acquisition, in what has been described as the greatest intellectual debate of the 20th century.
With regard to the media, he showed that during the Vietnam war, the mainstream media cleaved so tightly to the party line that it would have made the Soviet censors jealous.
As the mainstream media fades away, de facto censorship is being replaced by explicit censorship at the hands of Google and Facebook, and sadly Wikipedia.
So, the title of the podcast is meaningful. I suspect that, once we get past Chomsky’s politics, most of us would agree that “they” (ie. big media, big government, big technology) are shutting down real science and are feeding the masses with outright propaganda and misinformation.
plus, he needs a haircut and a shave- lately he looks like a slob
Like that Senator from Pennsylvania?
Oh, he shaved, partially
Yeah, well Chomsky’s writings urge his readers to never accept what they read in the media, but to be sceptical and check the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, he has publicly stated that the ongoing use of fossil fuels will lead to “the end of life on Earth“. He obviously practices a very one-sided scepticism.
No doubt Chomsky is brilliant, but he uses his brilliance to argue for a set of predetermined “anarcho-syndicalist” political beliefs that can be summed up as “USA Bad, UK bad, Israel worse”. It’s a very asymmetrical brilliance that can never countenance alternative views, even for a minute.
His adoption of every progressive idea as it emerges from the fog (climate alarmism, indigenous rights, BLM, legacy of slavery etc. etc.) shows that he’s really just a camp follower. He used up all his original thinking in the language debate.
Anarcho-syndicalism briefly flowered in Barcelona in 1936-37, before being swallowed up by Soviet communism. It’s a utopian dream that doesn’t do well in the real world. Which makes Chomsky a utopian dreamer, with no relevance to society at large. I regret the time I wasted reading his prolific (but repetitive) writings.
I’m not sure what you mean by “party line” during the Vietnam war?
The media were pretty pretty consistent in their attempts to under cut support for the war amongst the civilian population.
At some point that became the case. Two pictures are stuck in my mind: One was a victim of the Kent State riot/shootings. The other was the little naked Vietnamese girl running away from the napalm. My memory isn’t that clear about it, but it seems to me that the media sentiment changed some time around 1970.
Apparently, Robert McNamara, the Defense Secretary, became disenchanted with the results of his own policies and bailed out in 1968.
That was the case for the entire war, it just became more and more blatant over time.
The Media of the time of the Vietnam war was definitely anti-war. They didn’t have a good thing to say about the war.
Chomsky was on the side of the anti-war activists/journalists.
My guess is commiebob is referring to the DC Swamp and their party line to continue to prosecute the Vietnam war.
Keep in mind that six U.S. presidents thought it was necessary to fight communism in the region. The first pushback against communist aggression was during the Korean war, and the second was during the war in Vietnam.
Communism was on the march, all over the world at the time, and nobody knew how far it would go.
I wonder which side the media would have been on had Hitler not attacked Russia?
Nonsense. The media supported all fights against communism because both republicans and democrats were opposed to the spread of communism. The “Domino theory” was fully supported by the press until Nixon was in his second term as president and the student protests against the draft increased the awareness of the American public. Before that it was just “Hippies and Peaceniks” opposed.
Although the success of climate catastrophism is based on deception, I think we really need to look into the why and how of its social acceptance and promotion; especially by left-wing activists. An idea in society doesn’t succeed simply by being said, it must also be promoted, with contra-ideas suppressed. The take I get from Lindzen’s talk is that a funding feedback loop was set up, beginning with seed money going to politicos, who then released money (mostly to academia) to research, publish and promote the climate crisis.
“… a funding feedback loop was set up…”
Exactly, in my world of forestry, a very small part of the economy, it’s flooded with money to sing the party line on the climate. For the last several years I’ve tried to encourage forestry people here in Wokeachusetts to read WUWT, watch Tony Heller and John Robson videos, and many more. They totally ignore me as if I’m the crazy one- an untouchable for daring to suggest perhaps, just maybe, there is something wrong with the “climate emergency” and the need for the state’s net zero by ’50 law. After all, the forestry leaders here in academia, in the state agencies, in some fake non profit forestry outfits, even in some of the logging firms, are all finding ways to tap into the big bucks to battle “carbon pollution”. Makes me sick- especially since none of that will result in better forestry, which has always been my goal for half a century. Oh, and of course, the carbon credit scam- which they all love! The only other person in this state who stands against this nonsense just “passed”. Too bad as he was even more aggressive than me in trying to enlighten the idiots.
They probably don’t know that about 9 times as many people die from cold weather compared to hot weather. 4.6 million people die from cold or cool weather compared with 500,000 people dying from hot or warm weather each year.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
“why and how of its social acceptance”
It resonates with the Judeo-Christian psyce, religious or not. An unspoiled Eden, original sin, Biblical Catastrophes, redemption and everlasting life through penance.
Trying to tie the left to anything Judeo-Christian, is an exercise in futility.
More likely, the left needs a demon in order to rally their troops.
Great interview. Lindzen unleashed.
Guy Calender caught a broadside:
How he clearly linked CO₂ to temperature and declared that: The warming it caused would be beneficial
Slight problem: He had his graph upside down – the trend he calculated was a cooling trend
Next in the firing line: Arhenuis and Tyndall
This thing is utter garbage
Here it is in microcosm – an article describing how many solar panels would be needed in the Sahara (to power the world) and what they would cost
We are sooooo lost – it is beyond depressing
The Sahara desert is greening from the CO2. An area the size of France and Germany has become green due to CO2.
Transmission line losses from the Sahara will be huge.
Especailly if some faction decided to blow it up…
“Dr. Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.”
In some online forums- can’t recall where, people actually said that Lindzen “ain’t a climate scientist” though they think Al “the oceans are boiling” Gore is one.
Ah! But even fat Albert isn’t as wonderful a “scientist” and prophetess as Saint Greta of Howdareyou”!
!
Yes, but what to do with climate emotions?…..and a fungal disease is spreading fast – climate change could be to blame….and heat waves ramp up burning of fossil fuels….and ERs are seeing more patients with heat related diseases….and heat is costing the economy billions in lost productivity…and climate change is changing how we dream…and and…. ad infinitum…..
Take heart, AG! Truth wins. Every time.
Q (by interviewer/host) [~2:33:57]: “Do you have hope that at some point people will see the light?”
Lindzen (interjecting): “Oh, yeah!”
One thing I’m confident of: all the predictions of doom and gloom will continue to fail; there’s no foundation for them.[2:34:32]
Richard S. Lindzen
Atmospheric physicist highly cited and respected around the world for his work in
the dynamics of the middle atmosphere,
atmospheric tides, and
ozone photochemistry.
Selah.
The problem is they will keep pushing the goalposts out into the future and keep scaring people. How many of their predictions have failed to come true, but yet they are still making them. No one holds them accountable for their failures.
The motivation of any alleged deception is the fear of being made to look foolish when / if it is found out that they were wrong and knew it all along.
Fascinating discussion.