Advertisements

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 »

Advertisements

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


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 :


The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

― Michael Crichton

•••

the-wall-street-journal-logo

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

November 30, 2009, 7:44 p.m. ET

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and

lindzen

because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim. Keep Reading »

The Climate Emails

The Economics of Climate Change
Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’ 
Global Warming With the Lid Off 
Climate Science and Candor


Bureaucratic Dioxide

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

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

•••

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“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.”

•••

Lindzen discusses the state of the climate change debate, the lack of evidence for catastrophic warming and what the science really tells us.

•••

UPDATE

Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds. Keep Reading »

h/t to Al Zore @ICLEI_AGENDA21

UPDATE

Via Jo Nova

The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora

From the AIRS satellite at NASA

Watch how greenness and CO2 oscillate. Carbon dioxide is the yellow stuff on the map.

As you watch the yearly cycle, hold on to the thought: “my car can change global CO² levels”…

(My favourite part starts half way).

Continue Reading »

UPDATE

Exceptional piece on The Gas of life, Carbon Dioxide by Paul Driessen :

Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life

Paul Driessen | Aug 15, 2013

It’s amazing that minuscule bacteria can cause life-threatening diseases and infections –- and miraculous that tiny doses of vaccines and antibiotics can safeguard us against these deadly scourges. It is equally incredible that, at the planetary level, carbon dioxide is a miracle molecule for plants -– and the “gas of life” for most living creatures on Earth.

In units of volume, CO2’s concentration is typically presented as 400 parts per million (400 ppm). Translated, that’s just 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere -– the equivalent of 40 cents out of one thousand dollars, or 1.4 inches on a football field. Even atmospheric argon is 23 times more abundant: 9,300 ppm. Moreover, the 400 ppm in 2013 is 120 ppm more than the 280 ppm carbon dioxide level of 1800, and that two-century increase is equivalent to a mere 12 cents out of $1,000, or one half-inch on a football field.

Eliminate carbon dioxide, and terrestrial plants would die, as would lake and ocean phytoplankton, grasses, kelp and other water plants. After that, animal and human life would disappear. Even reducing CO2 levels too much – back to pre-industrial levels, for example – would have terrible consequences. Continue Reading »

•••

Related:

Climatism Hot Links :