Another person that the left prefers not to address is former Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore. But again, Sarah Palin is much easier to criticize. [video=youtube;pbgcyW-MqtY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgcyW-MqtY[/video]
LOL! Yeah, a critique from a guy who made an entire career out of being constantly wrong. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
OTH, if they are right about DC, NYC, LA and SF all ending up under water it does make a compelling case for supporting more global warming.
Lindzen has had a long career in climatology and worked on the IPCC report. However, he became infamously embarrassing for MIT over the last decade as a member of the Bjørn Lomborg "It's not that bad!" school of global warming. Though Lindzen fully accepts AGW, he claims that predictions made by other climatologists' models are "alarmist" and that temperatures will increase by less than one degree Celsius. He maintains this position even though the one degree barrier has already been broken. Managing to incorrectly predict the past is, in a bizarre way, quite an impressive feat for any scientist. Lindzen's talent seems to be making repeatedly failed predictions as well as failing to get much of his material published in peer-reviewed journals in his more "skeptical" days. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
I agree....I was just commenting on the other posts that you responded to. The premise of the whole thread is one of those, anti science, anti climate change BS sessions. According to them, Al Gore started the hoax of climate change and Bill Nye is just faking it too. I am wondering if any of these guys ever went to school beyound Highschool.
Anti climate change fanatics want to lock on to an individual here and there and pretend it means something. Science is about conscientious. You look to institutions. That is the case at MIT. It has little to do with a disagreement of a ne time faculty member, it has to do where MIT stands. That idea is way over the heads of deniers.
Here is Dr. Lindzen kicking his butt. [video=youtube;-hrUaD86XRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw[/video]
Actually Lindzen is heavily represented in peer reviews. Actually the warmers keep failing. [video=youtube;-hrUaD86XRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw[/video]
This is the person you ran down. Now, since Lindzen pushed Bill Nye around, why do you sneer at him again?
Because, as has already been demonstrated here, he's made a career out of being wrong, over and over again. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
And no shortage of 'real scientists' who don't support him. And I notice you ran in fear from his very long record of being totally wrong about a lot of climate change claims.
No, I don't. What are you disputing in what I linked to? Irrelevant to the numerous times that he's documented to have been utterly wrong in his claims and predictions. What else do you have?
You're delusional . Science doesn't work this way if you are looking for the truth. It's not about one vs the other. It's about who is speaking for whom ? Bill Nye is not speaking for himself, he is speaking for......MIT, NASA , The world's largest association of scientist , http://www.aaas.org. and every major university in the world...shall I go on ? Climate change is real, 2 degrees is significant and requires immediate action. Just get off your boney butts and make this a disscussion of institutions. Why ? Because institutions are a consensus opinion. Lindnez is speaking for himself. What does MIT have to say about it ? What do any of the major universities of the world have to say about it ?
I am so charmed by the left wingers claims. Telling me I am delusional. And telling me how science works though they can't explain this at all. They specialize in running down major climate experts. Bill Nye is not one. Institutions do not matter. They are a collective. And Dr. Lindzen was the prominent climate person at MIT. So important he was on the IPCC.
Ha ha ha Institutions don't matter ? You need to be in one. You know what's funny about your inane argument ? You're trying to make this guy relavant by listing institutions he got degrees from and work for. You're using institutions to back your claims. Dumb. Just go to the institutions them selves.....like MIT. Shall I google it for you or is Google not a relavant "institution". You must have a degree from the University of Gullible .
This is so typical of the left wing mind. The mind resorts to taunts and insults. When my argument is that profound, i am told what I am. It becomes ME as the target. When you study the 240 peer reviewed climate papers by Lindzen, get back to me. This is pure politics and you know it is. I challenge the US Government to put up or shut up. So far, only Holland is doing something to save their butts.
Institutions matter or they don't. Only a hypocrite would use them for his own advantage and discredit anyone else for using them for himself. Your argument does not exist because it is not backed by concensus equal to that of the other side. If you want to tell us what institution you have a degree from, we'll both Google their opnion on the matter. Otherwise, your degree is useless and your opinion is just that; opnion. I have said nothng about my opnion as it does not matter. Only the consensus matters when it comes to science. As far as the 240 papers, I would read the reviews of his peers not just his alone. That!/ called, peer review. Science works by approaching one problem or question from as many deferent scientific displines as possible. If a physics major gets to a conclusion about a climate question and the solution is agreed unpon by a biologist, a geologist or any other scientist, each approaching the same problem from their disaplines, now you begin to have consensus. This guy needs more...........
Why did you make those remarks? Again, since this is not about ME, and only the issues, the topic is not hypocrites. I challenged the US Government to put up or shut up. Show me what they are doing for the climate emergency? Don't tell me the wolf is outside the door but tell me I can hide in the closet. Tell me what the Feds do to modify climate? My argument is they are pure politicians. The science community is not making the same claims the politicans on the Democratgs side makes. Sure, read Lindzen's papers and his peers. And most of his papers are a cooperative with his peers. bear in mind, he got attacked by posters who do not like the man. The thing about Dr. Lindzen is he is a real climate scientist.
I notice you're still whistling past the graveyard of his absolute train-wreck of a record in being wrong about his claims and predictions. What's got you so nervous about that?
Just one more denier to the deniers, eh. The blog you quoted is run by a student in climate science. The article also quotes Michael Ashcroft a physics student, didn't you say in an earlier rebuttal that physics has nothing to do with climate? The article listed in Scientific American does not list the author or any references and when searched comes back to the same article with no author or references, hmmmm? Could be written by anybody. The truth is that more and more people are becoming skeptics, the artic isn't melting, there are more polar bears, they are not going extinct...People believe what they see and feel...And mistrust in government is at an all time high...A government that offers millions to researchers to prove their agenda...So they can scare people enough that they can convince people to shell out billions of tax payer dollars to support men like Al Gore and George Soros that invested in companies that will make billions if there ultimately is a carbon credits scheme. So we the people should shell out billions to trillions of dollars to a few men because they know better than everyone else. No thanks...I prefer to question because that is what science is, questioning and challenging, investigating...Science is not a democracy and nature's laws are not settled by a vote.
It is all about you. When you completely dismiss the foundation of educational opportunities in institutions in a simple word that has no meaning what so ever......."collective" ; you are dismissing the very reason for education, which is, the collection and dissemination of information over time from one to another, through institutions. You dismiss it, then trot out your single voice of authority whose credential are impeccable in your mind. The problem is, the credentials are all institutional in nature. Your arguments are false because you don't accept the way the scientific community works. You might say they Einstein is reponsible for all of his ideas, yet, he is not. The determination of his ideas as truths is just as much a part of all of his peers who would experiment and discover the authenticity of his work. Einstein isn't Einstein without consensus.
