Global Warming: How to approach the science (R Lindzen)
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Angeleño Ledger Daily Press
Next: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest ?mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
From: Dawlish on 22 May 2010 04:13 On May 21, 4:56 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 20, 1:39 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Only from the point of deniers. Don't be silly about "reality" when > > present global temperatures are here. This is the reality: > > >http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001 > > Didn't read the Lindzen talk at all, did you? All you Holowarmers can > do is post slanted data rinse/repeat rinse/repeat rinse/repeat rinse/ > repeat... No science can sway your belief in your gods! Oh I have read Lindzen in detail and his work with Choi 2009 (whom you don't mention and that's a giveaway that you haven't read their work).I have said that Lindzen is a fine scientist, however this work is flawed. Do you know that Lindzen has said the same about his own work? I doubt it, or you wouldn't have posted this.
From: Dawlish on 22 May 2010 04:13 On May 21, 4:59 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 19, 5:33 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On 18 May, 16:17, "Eric Gisin" <er...(a)nospammail.net> wrote: > > > >http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_.... > > > > Slide show of yesterdays talk at ICCC 2010 by Richard Lindzen. Not powerpoint, lots of information. > > > Good stuff. I wonder what name we should accept if not 'sceptic'? He > > is right I think, it maybe does give too much scientific credence to > > AGW alarmism. > > Excellent talk! > > And his "skeptic" remarks reinforce what I've been saying here for a > long time. These terms along with "denier" and "Anthropogenic" and > others are all carefully psychologically "loaded" to create a one- > sided debate. They are proof positive that the "climate-change" issue > is not one of "incontrovertible" science but rather of political > prevarications! > > Lindzen deserves much credit here for throwing off government > influences on science (something not so easy for MIT to do) and > standing up tall for reasonable data and debate. "Massaged" climate > data is a mouse-painting scandal that paints all of us in science! > > Lindzen exposes many of the "tricks" being used to fool and scare the > public into accepting large taxes on so-called "carbon footprints". > He shows real data demonstrating the "spin" used to give the > appearance of real scientific climate data while actually covering up > the actual variations. He even hints at the very clever scientific > trick of using the Nile-like statistics of climate data to fool the > ignorant into believing that large variations are somehow abnormal and > man-induced. > > It's truly refreshing to find someone like Lindzen with allegiance to > science rather than to some political bosses paying your salary and > giving money to your school. We salute you! > > And the critical point here is that there are PLENTY of serious > ecological problems that desperately need work without wasting all our > resources on some IMAGINARY ones designed to make a few thieves > rich! opinion - to which you are welcome.
From: Benj on 22 May 2010 15:42 On May 22, 4:13 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Oh I have read Lindzen in detail and his work with Choi 2009 (whom you > don't mention and that's a giveaway that you haven't read their > work).I have said that Lindzen is a fine scientist, however this work > is flawed. Do you know that Lindzen has said the same about his own > work? I doubt it, or you wouldn't have posted this. So what that this prove? Nobody is perfect so doubtless EVERYONE's work is "flawed" in some manner. But the problem with you holowarmers is that quantity means absolutely NOTHING to you. As far as your arguments go, some tiny "greenhouse gas" contribution (from CO2) is equal in your mind to a massive contribution, a minor rise in sea levels is still to you a RISE that can be broadcast to the public as alarm, and a few errors in work are to you equivalent to huge lying whoppers as found in the IPCC and Algore masterpieces. So the bottom line here is just how would you KNOW that Lindzen is a fine scientist? Without "quantity" you can't really judge anything. But then, science isn't the point here, is it? Oddly enough Lindzen is saying nothing that I haven't been saying here for ages. You say Lindzen is a fine scientist, so I guess that makes me one too rather than the ignorant nutjob "denier" that I'm constantly accused of being. The real "alarm" that needs to be presented to everyone isn't some mythical "doom" from some "Carbon footprints" but the "doom" to true science that comes when it gets bought out by politicians and others with vested economic interests. THAT is what should be concerning "real" scientists!
From: Benj on 22 May 2010 15:48 On May 22, 4:13 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 4:59 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > It's truly refreshing to find someone like Lindzen with allegiance to > > science rather than to some political bosses paying your salary and > > giving money to your school. We salute you! > > > And the critical point here is that there are PLENTY of serious > > ecological problems that desperately need work without wasting all our > > resources on some IMAGINARY ones designed to make a few thieves > > rich! > > opinion - to which you are welcome. Excellent reply Dawlish! So much better (if not any more enlightening) than the usual ad hominem attacks that are typically presented here as rebuttal to points on this subject with which one disagrees. Let's just call this a "good first step" toward meaningful discussion!
From: Benj on 22 May 2010 16:01
On May 22, 4:10 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 4:49 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > Yeah. It was refreshing to see Lindzen go after the term "skeptic", > > but he didn't have the balls to go after the propaganda term > > "denier". > > > If you ever needed any proof that "climate change" is a POLITICAL > > rather than "scientific" issue, the use of the term "denier" to > > describe any scientist not blindly supporting Anthropogenic Global > > Warming is IT! > > Well, it would be, if all scientists that didn't "bilndy > support........" were deniers and not sceptics, but mostmany that have > doubts, in the same way I do and are sceptical and certainly nor > deniers. There are very few deniers amongst scientists because they > realise what is most likely to be the truth. Many of those, having > worked in this field closely, are convinced. I can understand that > easily. I can't understand how a scientists can be completely > convinced of the opposite in the face of so much research and data. So what you are saying is that you don't understand politics! "Denier" is of course not a scientific term. In fact it's not even a straight descriptive term, but a propaganda term carefully crafted to use the semantics of the Neo-Nazi holocaust "deniers" where the term was invented to smear anyone questioning the "standard story" of WWII German concentration camps... even historical scholars. Hence my statement that the use of the term is proof of politics stands. Science is not, however, decided by popular vote nor even by the actual amount and/or quantity of data. A pile of manure is STILL a pile of manure no matter how high the pile! The question is the quality and reliability of the information in question. What you apparently can't seem to understand is the way politics by subverting a few men in leadership roles at universities, foundations, professional associations, and most importantly funding agencies can exercise a tight control over what scientists can say without jeopardizing incomes or careers. That is the TRUE "global warming" issue here. |