Advertisements

The Thoughts Of Richard Lindzen On Climate Change

Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most famous climate scientists,reviews the global warming evidence and concludes that global warming policies have hurt us more than global warming itself. (A.Bolt)

“Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.”

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

Richard Lindzen has written a powerful article about the state of climate science.

His introduction sets the scene:

Introduction:

For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as…

View original post 614 more words

Advertisements

Richard Lindzen Petition to President Trump: Withdraw from the UN Convention on Climate Change

EXTREMELY Important petition that the Trump administration must act on ASAP for the health and wellbeing of humanity and the environment worldwide!
Without access to fossil fuels (CO2) there would be mass casualties and environmental devastation on an unprecedented scale. People cutting down every tree in the planet to provide for their warmth, cooking and industry.
Notable Richard Lindzen comments about colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food CO2 over the years:

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

•••

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/bureaucratic-dioxide/

Watts Up With That?

lindzen

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.

View original post


Richard Lindzen: Cool it on the climate

We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

•••

Re-pressed via Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog :

Professor Richard S. Lindzen, arguably the world’s most prominent climate scientist, testifies to the US House Committee on Science and Technology:

 

I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.

The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such….

Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age. 

But this is about faith, not reason.

UPDATE

Still waiting for more warming. The UAH temperatures, updated now for November:

nov_thumb

Richard Lindzen: Cool it on the climate | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog.

Screen Shot 2013-12-05 at , December 5, 5.49.00 PM

Global Warming: How to approach the science – Testimony Richard Lindzen 2010 – Via WattsUpWithThat

See Also :

•••

Climatism Related Links :


Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment

Climatism comment : Important read from Richard Lindzen via WUWT :

  • “Carbon restriction policies, to have any effect on climate, would require that the most extreme projections of dangerous climate actually be correct, and would require massive reductions in the use of energy to be universally adopted. There is little question that such reductions would have negative impacts on income, development, the environment, and food availability and cost – especially for the poor. This would clearly be immoral.”
  • “Needless to add, support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for science.”

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen

Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. That is to say the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document, and as George Orwell noted, political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming; all models show greater tropical warming than has been observed since 1978; and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth. And yet, as the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever.

Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to…

View original post 533 more words


TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST : ‘Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Control Knob For The Climate’

josh-knobs-768x637

Climate Control Knobs by JOSH


WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

***

The Bolt Report with leading climate scientist Dr Judith Curry :

JUDITH CURRY is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. Unlike our politicians, she doesn’t think there’s much point to slashing emissions:

CLICK for interview link (0:49s) …

TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST - MAN CAN_T DO MUCH TO CHANGE CLIMATE | Herald Sun

CURRY – “thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.”

“I don’t think that even if we had the political will we could do very much to change the climate. Carbon dioxide is not a control knob for the climate. It has some effect on very long time scales but it is nothing you can really dial up or down on the time scale of a century and change the climate. There’s a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.” – Judith Curry PhD

TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST: MAN CAN’T DO MUCH TO CHANGE CLIMATE | Herald Sun

***

WHY THEN IS “CARBON DIOXIDE” (or as climate zealots deceitfully label it – “Carbon Pollution”) THE KEY INGREDIENT OF THEORISED MAN-MADE “CLIMATE CHANGE”?

LIKE with all Socialistic edicts, the answer is absolute power and control over you and your lifestyle.

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, explains :

“FOR a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen

*

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen

*

MORE LINDZEN

IN a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, Lindzen examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.

Prager Uni forward :

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

WATCH…

••• Read the rest of this entry »


CLIMATE CHANGE : It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled

Quotation-Mark-Twain-It-s-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them CLIMATISM

MARK Twain explains why it’s so difficult to end the man-made climate change scam


“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen

*

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen

•••

H/t Gail in Aus

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, in a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.

Forward Prager Uni:

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

WATCH!

•••

SEE also :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

CLIMATISM Hot Links :

TEMPERATURE Related :

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated and continue on a monthly cycle! Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists don’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations. Please give generously!

Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


CLIMATE CHANGE Predictions Are “Toast”! Arctic Sea Ice Volume Highest In 14 Years

Climate Change Predictions are Toast CLIMATISM


We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

“It’s very hard to see us fixing the climate, until we fix our democracy.”James Hansen

I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
.”

– Al Gore

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – HL Mencken

*

IT’S been 30 years since former NASA climate director James E. Hansen, sponsored by Democrat senator Timothy Wirth, made his ‘stage-crafted’ testimony to the U.S. Senate proclaiming that human emissions were dangerously heating the planet.

IT was Hansen’s testimony – made on a sweltering summer’s day during then the hottest year on record – that put climate change on the front page of newspapers.

THAT day was by far the hottest June 22 on record in the US, with almost the entire country over 90 degrees and much of the country over 100 degrees… Read the rest of this entry »


Climate Science Was Broken

“we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.” – Richard Lindzen on the broken field of ‘climate science’…

Science Matters

Natural scientists have sought to understand the workings of the climate system and its various parts. But in recent decades the process of discovery has been subverted, and the science is going in circles. Richard Lindzen tells how it came to this in his essay: Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?

As you might guess, the title is a rhetorical question. From his long and deep experience with the field, Richard Lindzen can and does describe in detail how and why climatology is failing as a natural science. The machinations and convolutions bring to mind the quotation:
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
– Otto von Bismarck

Perhaps because the field was contaminated with political aims early on, the whole enterprise has come to resemble a legislative process:


Lindzen sets the record straight with names and maneuvers which have crippled…

View original post 419 more words


The Climate Fuss

Brilliant short video by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, that simply and succinctly explains how the climate change scam has become the trillion dollar monolith that it is today.

The 5 minute presentation cuts through all the climate noise that alarmists use to confuse.

Spread this video far and wide. It is a very important must see for everyone – alarmists, sceptics and those unsure.

Science Matters

Definition Fussbudget:  A person who fusses over trifles. Also called fusspot.

In the last week, Richard Lindzen has a new youtube video which explains briefly and clearly who is making a fuss about climate and why. (Hint: It is not primarily from climate physicists). The video deserves to go viral, since the presentation is brief, informative and accessible to anyone.

Why are so many people worried, indeed panic-stricken about this issue?
It’s due not so much to climate physicists, as to politicians, environmentalists and media. Global warming alarmism provides the things they most want:

  • For politicians, it’s money and power;
  • For environmentalists, it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature;
  • For the media, it’s ideology, money and headlines.
  • And crony capitalists have eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly provided.

Beyond the…

View original post 167 more words


Don’t Let Climate Change Hysteria Damage The Economy

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

via The Australian :

Don’t let climate change hysteria damage the economy

“In all the talk about climate change, one compelling fact is often overlooked,” Australian Conservation Foundation president Geoff Cousins writes. “Just a handful of companies are responsible for nearly one-third of our nation’s greenhouse pollution through their production and consumption of energy.”

Man-made “carbon pollution” has become the shorthand rallying cry that unites global warming believers. The notion is a figment. It is made up. It is rooted in anti-capitalist, anti-growth green ideology that, for too long, has been bullied into our consciousness as science. It is shielded by censorship and falsely cloaked in the authority and respectability of science. But the hypothesis that supports it is collapsing.

Six months into his role at the ACF, Cousins wants to make his mark as an advocate for the cause. His constituents expect it. After all, the December climate conference in Paris is approaching and global warming hysteria has to be ramped up to preserve the endless flow of dollars that sustains it. Nothing must be allowed to rain on that parade.

But no matter how many times Cousins recites his political mantra, carbon dioxide will remain colourless, odourless and a non-pollutant. To quote Massachusetts Institute of Technology emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen: “We are demonising a chemical, a molecule essential to life.” Indeed; a molecule that, throughout Earth’s history, has fluctuated in its concentration. Higher temperatures have coexisted with lower CO2 levels than today, and the world has been colder at higher concentrations. There is no reliable correlation between temperatures on Earth’s surface and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Cousins also repeats that other old chestnut: “Already pollution is leading to more frequent and more intense droughts, bushfires, heatwaves and other extreme weather. Hot days have doubled in Australia in the past 50 years.” But what does he mean by hot days? How do the past 50 years compare to the 50 years before 1910, the convenient start date the Bureau of Meteorology adopts to avoid the extreme heat of the Federation Drought years?

Is he taking his drought trends from the same BoM source that maintains drought increased in the seven areas researched, even though an independent expert review of the data showed a declining trend in five of the seven? Is it the same BoM source that asserted Queensland was suffering the worst drought in 80 years when its own website declared it was the worst in nine? And what about James Cook University’s Jon Nott, who found Queensland is experiencing fewer cyclones than at any time in the past 500 years?

Should Cousins wish to look further afield, no point looking to the US for support because, for the first time since 1969, there have been no tornadoes reported in March, usually a big month for severe weather. What’s more the US has experienced fewer tornadoes in the past three years than any similar span since accurate records began in the 1950s.

The absence of any solid scientific evidence to connect extreme weather events to human activity has required the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reluctantly concede no correlation exists. This hasn’t stopped Cousins perpetuating that myth or naming, shaming and blaming respectable companies.

“We must consider,” writes Cousins, “how to start retiring the most polluting and outdated coal plants and replacing them with clean energy.” He must be aware of the job losses this would cause. The economics on that is settled. The renewable energy obsession has come at a cost to growth and employment, especially in South Australia, California, Ontario, Britain and Europe.

In partial capitulation, from 2017 the EU will become technology agnostic and feed-in-tariffs will be phased out. While Cousins is urging us to dump coal, Europe is providing payments to make sure coal-fired power stations stay online. In fact, the EU’s package being worked up for Paris will not specifically target coal. No wonder the Financial Times referred to renewables as a fad. But it is a fad with consequences.

Lindzen says: “World leaders are embarking on costly policies that have no capacity to replace fossil fuels but enrich crony capitalists at public expense, increasing costs for all and restricting access to energy to the world’s poorest populations that still lack access to electricity’s benefits.”

Cambridge University’s Prince Philip professor of technology Michael Kelly reckons: “The project to solve ‘the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much it will cost, when it will be completed nor what success will look like.” Only someone who controls other people’s money could sign up for something so ethereal. Only those who have lost touch with reality, or have some ulterior motive, could embark on a project so reckless.

Whatever the ACF’s motives, advocating policies that will destroy jobs and growth cannot be condoned. That includes campaigning against reductions in the renewable energy target when it is causing energy-intensive industries to close.

For more than 17 years satellites have recorded an unexplained hiatus in global tem­peratures. We don’t know whether the future direction will be down or up. Yet Paris delegates will proceed as if they do. Sanctions may even be recommended against countries deemed non-compliant. Better for Australia to await that outcome than impose unnecessary burdens on an economy struggling for growth.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. The views expressed here are his own.

•••

Newman Related :

See also :