Posts Tagged ‘Richard Lindzen’

Rat Snake Bob [Ward]

Friday, March 7th, 2014

Source: No Frakking Consensus

Yellow Rat Snake

Yellow Rat Snake

by Donna Laframboise

A UK parliamentary committee. A Canadian journalist. A rat snake.

Bob Ward says I uttered a “a number of inaccurate and misleading statements” when I appeared before a UK parliamentary committee in January 2014. His accusations have no basis in fact.

Ward is the Communications Director of both the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. I am mentioned by name in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the third page of Ward’s five-page submission – dated February 2014 and available here. My written response to Ward’s false allegations is here (3 pages). Some things worth noticing: (more…)

The End is Near for Faith in AGW

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

Source: Wattsup

Al Gore: Conspiracy Theorist

[SPPI Note: see our paper by Cook: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/are_skeptic_scientists_corrupt.pdf

by Russell Cook

When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result may send AGW into total collapse.

Guest post submitted by Russell Cook

I’m preaching to the choir here when I say appearances of people hiding AGW’s problems beg for clichés – the emperor has no clothes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along. But I’m not a scientist, nor do I have a scintilla of expertise to say with any authority that the IPCC is wrong and skeptic scientists are right.

The one thing I can do is offer an ordinary citizen’s informed view of what the barrier is preventing skeptics’ viewpoints from being heard, and how that barrier can turn from the paper-thin success story it is into a cancer that has the potential to wipe out the entire ideology of AGW. (more…)

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

Source:  Climate Depot

by Marc Morano

Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page ‘Consensus Buster’ Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

INTRODUCTION:

More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. (more…)

Yes, we have no bananas

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Cancun, Mexico

I dined with Dr. Roy Spencer as the Atlantic rollers swished and crashed against the long, sandy beach here in Cancun. We ate coconut-crusted camarones. Appropriately, shrimps in the Spanish-speaking world are named after the British Prime Minister, the truest of true believers in the New-Age religion that is the Church of “Global Warming”.

Cameron, or “Dave”, as he matily likes to be known, had been careful not to reveal his blind faith in the febrile fatuities of the forecasters of fashionable fatalism to his followers in Not The Conservative Party before they picked him as their leader: but, in his very first speech as Supreme Shrimp, he made it plain to the fawning news media that Saving The Planet would be his very firstest priority, yes indeedy. (more…)

Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

Source:  Popular Technology

Six Prominent Climatologists; John Christy, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer and Sherwood Idso, all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.

“I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” – John R. Christy

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973), M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984), Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002), Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003), Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004), Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006), Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present), Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), Lead Author, IPCC (2001) (more…)

Climategate and the Big Green Lie

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

Source:  The Atlantic

by Clive Crook

By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy. (more…)

Meet the green who doubts “The Science”

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

Source: Spiked

by Peter Taylor

The author of Chill explains why he’s sceptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant.

The science around climate change is not as settled as it’s presented as being. I used to think it was, until about 2003 – and then, feeling that the remedies being proposed for climate change would be more damaging to the environment than climate change itself, I took it upon myself to look at the science.

In my book on biodiversity, Beyond Conservation, I had mentioned in one of the chapters that perhaps the man-made global warming theory was not all it was being cracked up to be. The changes we are seeing now, I wrote, suggested that some other processes were at work. I then took time out, visited the science libraries, and checked the original science upon which today’s models are based.

I was shocked by what I found. Firstly, there’s no real consensus among the scientists in the UN working groups, especially around oceanography and atmospheric physics. The atmospheric physics of carbon dioxide for example is presented as being pretty straightforward: it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it warms up the planet. But even that isn’t settled. There’s a huge amount of scientific disagreement on how much extra heating in the atmosphere you will get from carbon dioxide. It is even broadly accepted that carbon dioxide on its own is not a problem. So, you can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and get half to one degree warming, which is within the natural variability range over a period of 50 years from now at the current rate of emissions. (more…)

Climate Science In Denial

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

Source: WSJ

Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and even startling.

In what has come to be known as “climategate,” one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere. One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December’s Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small. (more…)

Climate change is simply natural and disaster isn’t imminent

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Source:  Modesto Bee

By Richard S. Lindzen

To a significant extent, the issue of climate change revolves around the elevation of the commonplace to an ominous omen. In a world where climate change has been the norm, it’s now taken as punishment for sinful levels of consumption. In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the globally averaged temperature anomaly or GATA, as portents of disaster.

Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the past 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacial periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (more…)

The meltdown of the climate campaign

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Source:  WeeklyStandard

By Steven F. Hayward

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago-changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more. (more…)

The sound of alarm

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Source: Boston Globe

by Dr. Richard Lindzen

KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present. (more…)

Liberals and Scientific Method

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Source: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/mona-charen/2010/02/12/liberals-and-scientific-method/

By Mona Charen

True to their mission as the organs of the liberal establishment, Time magazine and The New York Times ran stories in the midst of the great snowmaggeddon warning us against drawing any politically incorrect conclusions. “Skeptics of global warming,” cautioned The Times, “are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt. Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.” Time agrees: “There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.” (more…)

O’Brien does it again

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Source:  Herald Sun

By Andrew Bolt

Perhaps, I thought, Kerry O’Brien had finally been embarrassed. Perhaps this was his apologetic way to even things up.

After all, yesterday’s interview on his 7.30 Report with climate sceptic Lord Monckton had been a disgrace, as I wrote this morning. Monckton, unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, was not given a one-on-one studio interview. Unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, Monckton had his motives and funding questioned, and his integrity gratuitously impugned. Unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, his appearance was counterbalanced and interrupted by interviews with three warmist critics, including a green lobbyist, who between them actually managed to speak for longer than did Monckton himselt. And unlike almost every warming alarmist interviewed by O’Brien, Monckton was not allowed the time tto actually explain his views, and indeed had them misreported by the reporter. (more…)

The 2013 IPCC report: more bias to come, especially about clouds

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, continues its very frequent meetings in exotic locations around the world, at taxpayers’ expense. Returning to Bali in October 2009 (it was last there in December 2007), the IPCC decided the chapter structure of its next major assessment report, which will not be published until 2013. Previous assessment reports were published in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007.

The structure of the science report will be similar to that of previous reports: a Summary for Policymakers, a Technical Summary, and chapters on atmospheric, land surface, ocean, and ice observations; reconstructions of earlier climates; carbon cycles; clouds and aerosols; radiative forcings; models; detection and attribution of climate change; short-term and long-term predictions; and, this time, a final chapter on sea level rise.

The inbuilt prejudice that has been a feature of the IPCC since its foundation is evident throughout the chapter structure. In particular, even though by 2013 the IPCC will have been in existence for a quarter of a century since its foundation in 1988, there will be no review of previous IPCC forecasts to determine the extent of their accuracy, still less to reveal that thrice the IPCC has been required to trim down its temperature projections, as the unfolding failure of the climate to warm as predicted causes a rethink. (more…)

Scientists goosestepping after Gore

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

From the Swiss weekly magazine Die Weltwoche

  • We are delighted to reproduce this recent translation of an interview with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Meteorological Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the most eminent climatologist alive today. The interview reveals something of the exasperation of the true scientist at the naive, religious belief of his colleagues in propositions that are either unknowable or unproven.

Professor Lindzen, you are called a “climate denier”. Does that make you feel like an outcast?

I am no outcast. If you want to soak up propaganda, that’s your problem. I work at the world-famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have the respect of my colleagues. Think for a moment about what you have just said. I am a survivor of the Holocaust. My parents fled Germany in 1938. Anyone who calls me a “climate denier” not only insults me – he also insults his own intelligence.

Why?

Because the topic of the climate is so complex. It has so many facets. Or do you really believe that every scientist rushes to goosestep in al Al Gore’s footsteps? Do you really believe that all of us ought to agree with him? Anyone who has even one or two neurons still working between his ears should know that anyone who uses the expression “climate denier” has lost the argument. (more…)