2018 Annual GWPF Lecture Prof Richard Lindzen Global Warming For The Two Cultures
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2024
- 2018 Annual GWPF Lecture
Prof Richard Lindzen
Global Warming For The Two Cultures
London 8 October 2018
Institution of Mechanical Engineers
This remarkable lecture should be shouted from every outlet available, and be compulsory ,repeated viewing for every politician in the land . . scientific interpreters would be recommended in the case of politicians, as most of them appear to be pig ignorant regarding this subject. Thank you Prof. for speaking so clearly and knowledgably . . along with Will Happer and his contemparies, you have lifted the debate on climate change out of the gutter, and into the outer atmosphere . . bravo.
Pushing Out Their Failed Projections ruclips.net/video/e9Qd2LLgY9U/видео.html
Paid by fossil fuels
BS
@@ryandalion8379 evidence ?
@Anne Jarvis search richard lindzen and peabody energy bankruptcy. His groups are funded by fossil fuels.
Basically explaining common knowledge and basic science and method to the public which should have been learned by them in grade school
No I thought so too because I'd only watched to 28:00. Turns out that's when Lindzen stopped giving some bog-standard physics at an entry level and switched to human wealth. Hang on, now he's back at physics having finished discussing the Pope, another bloke & Arthur Pewtey. I'll have to hear the whole thing because he's jumping around like a fart in a collander.
@@grindupBaker I get that but I still believe he's pretty much hitting the nail on the head because it to ties into the result we are seeing and what is being published
@RUclipsSurfin Lindzen is indeed very careful over the years. Just once ~9 years ago I heard him start on a standard mis-direction-style comment of his particular wealth team when he said "This means that .... well it doesn't actually mean anything". I know the mis-directing or irrelevant meme favouring your Team that Lindzen was about to state and then decided best not to in mid sentence. He's intelligent enough to avoid embarrassing himself by blurting even when he hasn't been scripting for tens of hours or more like he does for his talks like here. Building his overall narrative about the physical science facts & reality. An aside, you'll have noticed over the years that there are 2 opposing wealth Teams each crafting its own absurd, miserable, worthless junk-science drivel while disinterested bystanders fascinated by the science with no iron in the fire (increasingly looking like that consists me out of 8 billion humans) gets to hear irrelevance & drivel being totally debunked by ....... opposing irrelevance & drivel.
---------
So, for example (there are others), at 25:00 to 27:55 here Lindzen states something that is entirely correct and intentionally misleading on a massive topic because he doesn't discuss (deliberately avoids it) that there's no proxy data for a global warming that's anywhere near as much as the +1.11 degrees over just 150 years that's just happened, and also Lindzen nor anybody can think of anything that might have happened that might have done that, because Earth's physics make it impossible over the last few tens of millions of year by natural means by a significant margin (and Lindzen knows that). For example, Sun is a well-behaved star on its main sequence and a huge Forbush decrease (surge of galactic cosmic rays) for a few thousand years had no measurable effect on GMST. So Lindzen, carefully, he's intelligent, deliberately avoids QUANTIFYING these un-forced (except internally such as by ocean currents) changes because they would then be shown to be far smaller than the entirely-human-caused global warming (especially the absurdly-high +0.74 degrees over the last 40 years alone that the humanses have done).
@@grindupBaker are you an expert on this, I mean scientist?
@@grindupBaker I think you accused him of being prepared at one point haha
Too bad most people's attention span prohibits them watching this. Lindzen is a rock star!
My attention span stinks but nevertheless, here I am trying to listen with my notebook open to write some notes. I’m at least trying!
I heard that Lindzen crushed an entire frosh pit last week, and not with his fabled (i.e. non existent) logic. He really should stop leaping off the stage like that.
You can listen to this at 1.75 speed. Attention span problem solved!
@@grindupBaker Envious I see.
Yes, Ive actually had people reply with statements like "omg..... thats 15 minutes long...... ". "I havent got time to listen to THAT".
Prof Richard Lindzen is, and will always be the quintessential "calm" in what is the "hysteria" that is climate change.
I agree with many of the commentators here, who pay compliments to this truly great scientist
Lindzen has been roundly debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professors and the entire 99.9% consensus.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Link?
@@FEARTHEEER1
Search for this "Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump".
@@hosnimubarak8869 Thanks.
Ah, I've only just twigged why EmperorGooglesTubes randomly stopped showing me replies to my comments. It's simply because they have non Googly links in them. Well, I'm a big boy and if the link is to something naughty I can always ignore it, or not.
I initially though that RUclips was suggesting to me pro-climate change policy channel but I was pleasantly surprised to see this foundation offers important critical approach towards the global warming and climate change claims. Will be following them.
You should listen to both sides. The other side is quite boring though, spoiler alert: it's all fraud.
Thanks for the heads-up.
I'm a sceptic of human influence on climate change.
The reason:
Humans' activities are restricted to the earth's surface (radius 6,371 km):
-between 6 km above and 3 km below
-on less than 30% of the land mass
Compared to the earth's core's energy, gases, etc, human influence is miniscule!
Wow you're as gullible as the other suckers for the corrupt take of money and dirty filthy blood-soaked hands
I have always held Richard Lindzen and William Happer in high regard. Its a shame our collective governments have highjacked science.
Not all governments are promoting hysterical climate change inaccuracies, but certainly the Progessive ones who seemed to be aligned with the WEF/Great Reset misinformation spreaders, pushing a dystopian Socialist agenda.
It's a tragedy that political actors have highjacked what youngsters are learning about science.
a supportive comment has been suppressed
Lindzen & Happer are A$$clowns.
@@hosnimubarak8869Are you comparing them to yourself?
The parallels with Covid19 strengthens everything Lidzen has said here. Thank you for making this available, really great content!
@@allgoo1990 I am aware, I was trying to say that what he says about the scientific community running away with global warming is similar to what they just did with covid the last few years. Many of his points could be argued the same against the health industry imo.
@@allgoo1990 The truth would be a good start
🎯
@@benji523 Your opinion is nothing more than a lack of an education
1000%
Mass psychosis is in play. Only sad i came across this fantastic lecture now
I’m convinced that if we taught our children the timeless wisdom in stories about chicken little, the emperor’s clothes, mountains out of mole hills, grass is always greener on the other side, all of this would stop. Not just for children, but for the parents that force themselves to re-evaluate things as they teach their kids that hopefully are encouraged to ask good questions.
And let us not forget the timeless, "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'."
What a great point you make. The parents reading the stories from Aesops Fables to Grimm Fairy Tales and Hans Christian Andersen have the opportunity to re-learn the underlying message, moral to the stories.
Do post your data that refutes the 99.9% consensus and the IPCC. I'd love to see it.
@@foxtrotjulietbravo5536 Before reading the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" to your children, read some scientific data.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Did you watch the video?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 you mean the 99.9% of the 33% that actually expressed an opinion.
Excellent talk! Also showing that mixing science and politics creates chaos...
I've been looking for this calm, explicit lecture for years ... thanks for inviting Dr Lindzen to enlighten us.
Lindzen has been deunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professors and the entire scientific consensus.
he exposes the intentions of the rich left so bluntly and precisely
In a Forbes survey, 43% of billionaires self-identified as Republican and 33% self-identified as Democrat. The rest were independents. Also, the "left" doesn't produce the science. Scientists do, and they come in all political stripes. The difference is that protecting the environment is always a top priority for Dems and protecting business interests (including big oil, who contribute millions to Republican candidates) is a top priority for Republicans. So blaming the left for respecting scientific studies and acting appropriately on climate change makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree, slowly people are starting to realise this. The WEF are now being exposed to what they are all about.
Dr John Christy is another scientist who is also a champion for the truth of Climate that should be revealed in school's, stop scaring the children. ❤️
See "Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy". Skeptical Science does a great job of debunking him. Lindzen too.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 ..."debunking"? We see who's on the side of the despicable propaganda mercenaries, and who is on the side of science.
@@bubblefroggy1 Both Christy and Lindzen have been trashed in the scientific literature. Confirmation bias is not evidence, by the way. Neither are echo chambers, like this video. By contrast, ELEVEN separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. ELEVEN. 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions publicly endorse the consensus findings, which is why EVERY nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC. Even Exxon's own scientists acknowledged in leaked memos that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet. They even accurately predicted how much we'd warm.
See "Climate Contrarian Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues," where 22 of Richard Lindzen's fellow MIT professors in the atmospheric sciences take him to task for his unsupported views. (Lindzen also defended the tobacco industry against claims that smoking causes cancer, if that tells you anything. He also swore that he never took money from the fossil fuel industry yet was exposed for doing exactly that during a bankruptcy hearing for Peabody Energy.)
See also "Climate Misinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen" for a complete dismantling of his talking points, by evidence-based science, not politics.
See "Climate Misinformation by Source: John Christy" and read a point by point refutation of his views, based on the evidence, not conjecture or political bias.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 😂😂 oh poor mind.
@@JoInnovate So in other words, Jo, you have no data to refute anything I posted. Got it. ;)
Thank you Professor Lindzen. Very informative.
He nails it. This whole debate has little to do with climate. It´s about income redistribution.
Don’t forget control as well.
Let me guess U never finished your GED did ya ? If U did its even worse
@@Proemed44G Let me guess you never got out of preschool & choose to fawn over your Marxist leaders. This farce is all about redistribution.
@@Proemed44G I finished my Masters degree and I agree with her... And you ? But none of that matters, I am betting you are not a scientist... Neither am I... Maybe we should shut up and listen.
@@Proemed44G Sure 🤡🤡🤡!!!
Why does it take the GWPF 3 years to upload a video? When will we see the video for 2022? Maybe in 2025?
It all costs money.
@@grindupBaker thats why these puppy video makers and these influencers who upload three videos per day are so poor. Man! how often per moth do you switch on you brain?
Because the green people do not want the truth out
I’ve seen this video before, for what is worth. And I believe it was on RUclips. There really should be a complete library of articles, studies, lectures, videos, etc from both sides (only serious people) that is searchable. Perhaps it already exists and I just haven’t come across it.
Excellent lecture.
It's definitely brought me to appreciate science and I learn something new every time I hear a Richard Lizen lecture
Only thing missing is the alterations of the temperature record. Cooling the past and warming the present.actual thermometer Temperature reading are no longer used until after they are altered. See Tony Heller.
Why bother. Heller lacks expertise in atmospheric physics. He is a vociferous conspiracy theorist and fraud whose methods of communication rest entirely on logical fallacy and the ignorance of his target audience. He lies all the time so much so he was even banned from WUWT.
Tony Heller is popular among the easily duped, because he offers charts and graphs to an audience he counts on not being able to read them. He is known for engaging in two rhetorical tricks that give away his game: He mixes up global/long-term data with local/short-term data; shifting between the two and even sometimes with the same sentence. The other trick he uses is accusing NOAA of fabricating data by misrepresenting the reasons for temperature adjustments and ignoring explanatory material in reports.
Brings to mind there is a reason why Christy and Heller plot the centre path, not the whole cone; they want to deceive you about how accurate the GCMs have actually been.
I wouldn't trust a person that told us 1930s was warmer then today, which is a lie, as we know he fooled many by swapping in a chart of temperatures over less than 2% of Earth's surface and told us it was the whole globe; such stuff comes from professional liars.
Tony Heller videos: "Pseudoscientific quackery."----MediaBias/FactCheck
Could someone explain what Dr. Lindzen is saying with respect to balancing the sun's energy (starting at 17:54). I'm not sure how he comes up with 255 Kelvin -- which is -18 centigrade. And I'm not sure what he is saying. Is it that the earth would not heat up if its temperature was 255K? If so, why is that? Thanks!
UNITED NATIONS, "We own the science". No, you own the SCIENTISTS!
Excellent presentation Prof. Lindzen and thank you. I wish I'd thought of the target practice quirk, shoot first declare target spot later.
I am interested to hear him again now that global events have progressed more into making ten commandments for the earth. I pray for this man. I want to see him in heaven.
Jordan Peterson has a great interview with him.
Brilliant man and so pleasant to listen to. He has enriched my life. Thank you.
I will play this video in my classes.
Where is Al Gore, AOC, Leonardo Decaprio, and John "why the long face" Kerry! we need their expertise to give this conference credibility!
😂
Lindzen's point about "internal effects" at 25:04 is asserted by a paper by a team including Andrew Dessler who I mention because he also explained the paper in a video pair (short & longer) at ruclips.net/video/LV9aCiyui18/видео.html and at ruclips.net/video/jlolDdnSHCE/видео.html They assert there'll be 0.8 degrees more global warming over centuries just from ocean heat re-balancing with no new heating effort. So this is one thing exactly like what Lindzen said at 25:10 to 25:14 although Lindzen wasn't mentioning this specific thing, nor does he even know about it, of course. So if Dessler et al are correct then Earth will warm 0.8 degrees over centuries from now with any "explicit forcing" (Lindzen's correct phrase for "when nothing's being done to Earth, it's just changing by itself").
Andrew Dessler was not talking about unforced internal variation in the climatic system occurring on many temporal and spatial scales, as Richard Lindzen was above, but trying to rationalize the obvious lack of warming in recent decades by claiming that the missing heat energy is somehow being sequestered in the oceans. Dessler does not see this as an internal effect, but a delayed response to external forcing, which he just assumes has taken place. By contrast, Lindzen's argument needs no such prior assumptions, and can explain the climate perfectly well without them! By the principle of parsimony, or Occam's Razor, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to introduce unnecessary complications, and Lindzen's explanation is just simpler and better founded scientifically.
2018. Love his insight on the mental state of elites.
18:43 Prof Lindzen, you are wrong. The temperature should be 278K, rather than 255K, if the earth were an ideal blackbody. The reason why you were told it's 255K is because the albedo 0.3 was assumed.
How refreshing to hear a different narrative on climate change, to the “we own the science “ one of the UN!
amazing thank you sir
Thank you much Prof. Lindzen. Now I have a few good arguments for my next green encounter.
The threat is if CO2 gets beneath 150 ppm or so. Then will photosynthesis grind to a halt and we all die of starvation.
With 8 billion humans, millions of respirating organisms, trillions of decomposing plants and thousands of volcanoes, there is ZERO danger of CO2 ever dropping below 400ppm again, let alone 150. It's fossil fuel industry propaganda designed to scare you.
My greatest hope is the brainwashing can be overcome , I have serious doubts my niece is a school teacher and she is forced to terrify children with the lie that we are going to die, the alternative they are pushing will cause a human tragedy
I doubt any informed teacher is teaching children that we're going to die from climate change. Actual death from climate change is unlikely for most of us. Pretty sure teachers know that. The scientific evidence contained in the over 350,000 climate studies published in the last fifty years isn't "brainwashing," by the way. It's knowledge, my friend. And one can hardly scoff at studies one hasn't read.
Could not agree more, what the results of this stupidity , is the reaction of the 'well meaning' politicians happening now :. elimination of oxygen carbonyl.
Check out Tony Heller on RUclips. He goes into the climate data.
Tony Heller videos: 'PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC QUACKERY"---MediaBias/FactCheck
It’s interesting how showing historical records of the climate has turned into pseudoscience quackery.
@@CryptoSurfer Nobody in climate science considers historical records of climate as pseudoscience. Knowing the past is climate science 101. However, misrepresenting the past, as charlatans like Tony Heller does, either by verbal sleight of hand, cherry-picked data, or little lies of omission is indeed pseudoscientific quackery.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
you can't help it, drone?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Tony Heller largely presents historic climate data from agencies such as NOAA. He presents the data and lets you decide. He doesn't get into attempting to explain the "models", he simply presents temperature data and nobody responds that the data that he present is false
The temp rise from1860 is 1.2 deg C. How do we know that the temp readings in 1860 was accurate or where it was ? Very few countries had any weather stations and many still don’t. Many that did have since altered by urbanisation and local changes. If they were lower then than now as is likely the earths temp could have gone down not up .
We have several lines of evidence that clearly establish global warming as "real." (1) The icecaps and the world's glaciers are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history. (2) The rate of sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s. (3) High tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has increased 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even the northeast, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. (4) Warming concentrates at high latitudes, which is why places like Fairbanks and Anchorage have seen average winter temperatures increase 8 degrees F in the last fifty years. Northern Canada and Greenland too. The warming trend is seen everywhere, in rural areas, in isolated regions hundreds of miles from civilization, over the oceans, in the ocean, and from space, with the greatest increase in temps coming in the last 40 years. Urban heat island effects are always taken into account and adjusted for when measuring temperature.
1880 was the year climate scientists believe we had enough weather stations throughout to accurately measure the globe's average.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 how many temperature stations did we have in Antarctic in 1880?
Are the ice caps and glaciers melting at unprecedented rates? Source?
@@rjbiker66 This site has blocked my posts twice.
@@rjbiker66 Antarctica obviously wasn't covered with weather stations in 1880, but nor did we need them to determine the rest of the world's warming trend. We do, however, have proxy data from the Epica ice core from dome C going back 800,000 years, which reveals both C02 and temperature history. Schneider et al (Geophysical Research Letters, Aug 30, 2006) has a precise reconstruction of the previous 200 years in Antarctica, which shows a 0.2C rise during that period.
I provided links in two posts that this forum ended up blocking. When I tried to cut and paste headlines you could Google, the forum blocked those as well. See "Unprecedented Ice Loss In Greenland Breaks Record". and "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Low" and "Earth Loses 1.2 trillion Tons of Ice Per Year, a Nearly 60% Increase Since 1994"
I'll post more after I see if the forum will accept them.
@@rjbiker66 "Unprecedented Rates of Mountain Glacier Melting"
"Speed at Which Glaciers Are Melting Has Doubled in 20 Years"
"NASA Reveals Decades of Antarctic Ice Loss That Went Under the Radar"
"Antarctic Ice Mass Loss 2002-2020"
"NASA Time Lapse Video of Arctic Ice"
Beware of the debunked 2015 NASA/ZWALLY Antarctic satellite survey which mistook snow for ice and which denial blogospheres continue to cite. No study before and no more comprehensive survey after found what the Zwally survey did.
I thought the solar constant (that isn't really a constant) was ~1300 W/m^2, not the 200 W/m^2 he talks about. I am confused...
Nobody has successfully described a mechanism for variations in the solar wind to significantly influence climate. On scales from minutes to hundreds of thousands of years, total solar irradiance is practically constant. That its tiny variation on an eleven year period (one part in a thousand from the mean) correlates with no climate or weather trend; just short term changes in the atmosphere.
❤excellent and thank you.
Lindzen's correct at 45:45 that scientists have little grasp of effects on Arctic Ocean sea ice (the other poorly-understood things are ice sheets, so ice again, and the biggie cloud changes). I watch the videos of their Webinars between many scientists specializing in Arctic Ocean presenting and then questioning each other about all kinds of matters regarding Arctic Ocean air circulation, water circulation & sea ice (there's a "Mister Cyclonic" bloke and his enemy a "Mizz Anticyclonic" lady but I don't think they actually fist fight). I watch the videos of Webinars between the AMOC scientists and the videos of Webinars between the "pattern effect" (long term warming with no forcing) scientists. It's interesting.
Check out Susan. Crockford polar bear science
grindup Baker
good name BTW
The 1.5 / century measured increase correlates with the reduction of the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, due to the change in mutual alignment of the great planets Jupiter and Saturn.
This also moves the planetary center of gravity, in the extreme, just ouside the Sun, affecting the distance of the Earth to the Sun. What is always conserved is the lenght of the major axis. One focus of the ellipse is this center, called metacenter, not at the center of the Sun
Described by Milankowitch.
Science benefits from and advances through vigorous and open minded scientific debate. A very good example of this is the series of debates between the good friends Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. These debates were instrumental in the development of Quantum Theory. With this in mind we are well advised to remain somewhat skeptical of the arguments of Prof Richard Lindzen and also of the claims of the more mainstream positions of climate scientists. I am thrilled to see people debating the science but am less thrilled when people attack the scientist personally rather than attacking the validity of the claims on their own merit.
Prof Richard Lindzen's "arguments" consists of an estimate of climate sensitivity of 1.6 degrees, an amount that's already far out of whack with observations which indicate 2.8 degrees and the recent "Earthshine" measurements indicating that Earth's extra-polar albedo has decreased by 0.5 w / m**2 so the warming has made cloud reflection go down, not go up like Lindzen predicted from his "Iris effect" (poorly sampled) analysis. Lindzen has no expertise in any other area of science (effects on fish and so on) so what I just said is it for science for Lindzen and the main thrust of babble otherwise is Lindzen making an income, which everybody does so fair enough, without lying at all in this talk (edit: he did lie once within the wealth babble bit soon after 28:00), just explaining some of the bog-standard science that I knew, and the people of the wealth-only-zero-science-interest spending their money as they see fit for their obvious not-science-related purpose. The public "debate" is merely between a bunch of random ignoramuses with their over-excited signs and comments and some random other bunch of ignoramuses with their own absurdly-imbecilic Dunning-Kruger signs and a proud declaration that they have zero interest in ever understanding any of it, only parroting their worthless opinions on it based on proudly knowing nothing. That's almost entirely the worthless state of science "debate" among the public. Meanwhile thousands of scientists continue quietly doing their work and the Earth systems relentlessly do whatever it is that Earth systems do when humans warm it at a staggeringly-fast unprecedented rate for decades on end.
Great info. Thanks
It is simple and clear. But far too complicated for Greita Thumberg and her followers, who encompass almost all teachers.
Great and understanding presentation for "ordinary" peaple!👍😊 thank you Sir!
Now hear Dr Willie Soon for the science behind the " science" .
Do you mean the same Willie Soon who secretly took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry and then published 11 scientific papers about his "science" without disclosing his funding? The same Willie Soon whose "It's-all-the-sun's-fault" mantra has been roundly debunked in the scientific literature? The same Willie Soon who continues to insist it's all due to the sun even though solar output has weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA?
How did you calculate that he is the most distinguished? Are you calling the guy with marginal opinion on the topic to be the only speaker? It means you are not trying to cover the topic, but to lie.
Briljant lecture!
Lindzen has been widely debunked, including by 22 fellow MIT professors.
The 3 gourges dam slowed the rotation of the earth how does that effect climate
You know Professman Klausi Schwurb?
Klaus Schwab? WEF - dangerous stuff.
The System is less and less working/tends to warming as the surface is deprived of its natural elements.
Well even for the layman that I am use of common sense instead of fear mongering can easily understand what Prof Lindzen has said. Ok the little part on green house effect took me more concentration and time to figure but it wasn’t out of my capacity. In a philosophical way somebody who is wrong since more than 20 years in predicting things should be put aside for a better one even if we like him!
Lindzen described perfectly at 23:03 to 24:56 why computer simulation climate models offer the only possible hope of determining the effects of any significant changes to Earth's energy system (not humanses energy, negligible as stated by Lindzen, but Earth's energy system) because it's impossible to do by calculation. I did computer programming for part of 1968 to 2018 when I worked at professions, including formulae (easiest level), iteration (more complicated level) and computer simulation (most complicated level). You use formulae only (fastest) when possible for a result, then iteration (far slower) when formulae alone is impossible , then computer simulation (slowest) when formulae and iteration alone is impossible. I did this for oil & gas exploration and later for building systems and equipment control. The 2 issues are (1) Getting computer fast enough to have grid boxes small enough for very high resolution sufficient to mimic Earth with enough accuracy (probably the huge problem) and (2) getting the physics right (probably the lesser problem except for ice which wasn't studied enough until this century). Computer simulations are used exactly for such chaotic situations as Lindzen described at 23:03 to 24:56 because you just can't solve that with formulae alone so what you do (I've written computer program for this for persons moving around in a big crowded building in order to plan certain building features so's it won't be a big traffic jam so often that people will be angry with the building owner, only once per year maybe just like when the subway stops because of pol;ice investigation or frozen points). So what you do is run the simulation 99 times (whatever, it all costs money) and get all the outputs for what you want and make a scatter plot so Lindzen's correct thing about clouds could be here or there changes RANDOMLY between runs (I used pseudo-random rectangular deviates random number creation with a complicated computer time tick seed to start it) will make 99 points in the scatter plot and now you know the most likely and the range from that scatter plot. So that's the use of numerous runs of a computer simulation model to examine randomness by actually mimicking what happens when this or that thing randomly changes like a bit of cloud over here or over there.
Computer simulations are utterly useless at the level of computational power we have now. If we use that civilization scale we are not a Type 1, where you control all planetary weather among other things. To control the weather you must be able to simulate it on a planetary scale since its a closed system. We cant even yet develop self driving cars yet we talk about climate models... I would say its arrogance and stupidity but we all know its not as simple as that... Powerful interests benefit from these fake models.
Why is the MIT professor wasting his breath when I can get educated by the official explanation as provided for context?
Dogma is so powerful now with so little counter views finding a platform is highly concerning
Hey people, search for this "Richard Lindzen Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues".
Seriously? That's your best shot?
@@Earthandweather
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".
Quite likely, as we're 2 years into the Grand Solar Minimum of Solar Cycle (SC) 25 and SC26 and SC27 will be cooler. That'll take us through 2050. @@hosnimubarak8869
@@paulgilchrist5917
Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself in public?
i can't believe this isn't banned on youtube what a surprise
RUclips doesn't ban contrarian science. Contrarians are spewing misinformation like Lindzen's all over the internet.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Most people really do know the difference now. This whole climate change global warming push is part of a communist take over of the world governments.
@@gregorystetkis7009 Most peole really do know the difference? Hardly. You apparently don't. Your nutbag post about a communist takeover proves it.
Are contrails being used to warm the Planet or cool it ?
Contrails?What is that?Do you mean chemtrails?,the spraying of the sky with metals.
2
At 36 min he dead on about the 🇺🇸
Excellent!
Thank you for your information.
These piople are insane!!!!!!!!!!!
He refers to the precautionary principle created & published by the UN in the early 90s as a bogus reasoning to use to apply non-scientific approaches in their fight to promote Global Warming as their Main concern and untrue reason to stop fossil fuel use…..explained below;
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
(Used by Planning departs, and all local City, County & State
Democratic legislators and Committees)
It was published by the UN in 1990s. In their AGENDA 21 book.
IT STATES: “Whenever a development plan or policy is “SUSPECTED” to possibly be harmful to the environment or public and in the absence of scientific “consensus “
that it is not dangerous,
the burden of proof is on the promoters of the plan to prove it is not harmful”.
It does not define WHO can have the suspicion ( for example, your neighbor ? or the environmentalist down the street ?)
It does not define what is scientific “consensus” (eg-51 % of liberal science teachers in town ?, 100% of all governmental scientists ?)
It is being used by environmentalists & globalists World wide to stop building of roads & factories in 3rd world countries, stop building of Dams, to tear down Dams (Klamath Dam), to stop energy use/development (especially in poor developing countries), to stop use of NECESSARY fossil fuels everywhere without a replacement….. To make people live with LESS !!!!! ….
THE GOAL ! !
It is an Environmental Tyranny tool !!!
I see I was the 333 comment. I'm going to read all the others.
It's all about power, control and greed!
Ten separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. TEN. The consensus is also publicly endorsed by 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions. Of the over 88000 climate change studies published between 2012 and 2020, 99.9% agree that human activity is driving global warming, not nature. That's according to an audit of the scientific literature by Cornell University last year.
Richard Lindzen, by contrast, is not only roundly debunked in the scientific literature but is publicly refuted by 22 of his fellow MIT professors.
Please, please hang-on while the speaker is introduced hyperbolically and while the speaker begins and continues for some time heaping something that sounds very much like contempt on his audience. This guy IS BRILLIANT and way back in 2018 DEMOLISHES the conventional 'wisdom'
He seems to think the elite do in fact believe this. At least it is what he said, I believe they simply agree with a position because it is judicious regardless of what their reason might guide them to. The waste to humanity is indeed immense.
I think Lindzen's characterization of the broad types of thinking in the various social classes is spot on. I see it all the time.
It's become even more apparent during the covid era that there is disproportionate amount of ignorance among highly educated people.
The reasons for this are many: a tendency towards compliance; over regard for the opinions of one's peers; personal vanity; fear of lost prestige/income. I'm sure there are more.
As for the 97% consensus, Feynman said: "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".
Add in the almost total corruption of the scientific academy, wedded to a tragically myopic political agenda, and you've got a recipe for very bad things to happen.
This is a slow motion train wreck which will only get worse, with bodies piling up exponentially, until we decide to stop everything and reconsider our goals.
OMBUDSMAN
For a part because of the weakness, and even absence of an Ombudsman, two things have happened: the dollar has had a stronger grip on legislative procedures and the demoNcrats have got away with toxic activities.
Cite the toxic activities.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 There are too many of them some of which I have been directly exposed to! A good question would be to ask: do the demoNcrats anything right?
@@patricelauverjon2856 So in other words, Patrice, you couldn't come up with anything toxic the democrats have done, which means that you've been indoctrinated to believe they have by conspiracy theories and right-wnd media hyperbole. The three most beloved government programs in the country, Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act, are all Democrat programs. Here's what Biden has done in less than two years. Let me know which of them you object to and think may be "toxic:
Biden passed the major infrastructure bill that Trump promised but never delivered.
Biden increased subsidies to the Affordable Care Act, allowing millions more impoverished Americans to get health insurance. Trump promised a better health care system, failed to deliver, and then slashed subsidies to the ACA, removing millions from health care enrollment. He did this during the HEIGHT OF COVID, when Americans needed health insurance more than ever.
Biden just passed legislation to lower prescription drug costs.
Biden just passed legislation to lower our national debt.
Biden just passed legislation to supercharge our transition to cleaner and cheaper renewable energy.
Biden's programs increased Covid vaccinations from 13 million when he entered office to 224 million now.
Biden passed the American Rescue Plan
Biden passed legislation to fund the Pact Act to support veterans healthcare.
Biden passed the CHIPS and Science Act to keep us competitive with Chinese technology for years to come.
Biden passed legislation to make billion-dollar corporations who pay zero tax to pay a minimum 15% tax.
Biden passed legislation to increase funding the IRS to modernize and go after wealthy tax cheats
The Biden Administration ordered the successful assassination of the Al Qaeda kingpin.
Biden restored all the environmental regulations that Trump stripped. (9 different environmental organizations rank Trump as the all-time worst president for the environment.)
Biden has increased funding for community policing.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Thank you: you are talking about controversial logistics because of the results on the ground: for the last 5 years I have put together a manuscript of 100,000 words where what is described is the huge lack of non-scientific Humanities and the corruption. Analysing sitting in front of a computer is one think, witnessing situations all over the world, including America, is another. DemoNcrats or Republicans I cannot find indications of waking up out of wOke! In greed one cannot trus! Dysfunctions are embedded, going red is a lesser harm!
@@patricelauverjon2856 So in other words, you couldn't come up with any toxic legislation the Dems have passed or advocated for. And since you didn't reject any of the Biden accomplishments I listed, I'll assume you object to none of them. Okay. So where do you go from here to support your belief system?
Which "woke" legislation do you object to? Be specific. "Woke" has evolved from a word denoting awareness of racial discrimination to a level of absurd fantasy constructs by MAGA Republicans, who falsley promote the belief that every elementary school teacher is pushing homosexuality, transgender lifestyles and racism against whites onto their students. None of it is true.
Slavery and the history of discrimination against minorities are among the most important history lessons students will ever learn. Failure to teach every generation about the the factors that led to the Holocaust, the removal of Native Americans from their homelands, the Rape of Nanking and other historical atrocities will only lead to a repeat of similar atrocities in the future. Being made aware of how humans discriminate and why is paramount. Do you not agree?
I’d like to have heard more about the ‘97% of scientists who agree’, their relevant academic credentials, and how they were ‘strong-armed’ into agreeing with the narrative we hear every day.
The 'consensus' argument is a better metric of how scientists are compelled to pay lip-service to the climate panic even to get published and keep their jobs. In fact, the point of agreement in the so-called consensus was not that catastrophe is imminent and humans are to blame, but that humans can have some impact on climate, which is trivially true, and not very concerning at all. In the Cook paper, only 0.3% of the abstracts reviewed indicated a belief in climate catastrophe!
NINE separate studies confirm a 97% or higher consensus of publishing climate scientists, most of which are at the PhD level. Nobody voted. Nobody was "strong-armed." It wasn't a show of hands or a popularity contest. It's what the scientific literature itself has established via numerous lines of empirical evidence.
CDN blew that false claim out of the water. The only concensus is the Earth is warming and humans have some impact, after those two simple statements the consensus doesn't exist.
@@Ubu987 here I thought the question they were asked was 'does the climate change?'
Actual science! 👍🏻 Google's context highlight is the usual propaganda rubbish.
Being comfortably brainwashed is preferred, over thinking.
CLINTEL(Climate Intelligence) is another group of scientists who say the same, the “climate crisis” is exaggerated.
Good to hear from you
Этот оратор, задал много вопрос о явлениях и доказательствах потепления, но не на один не ответил. Просто сказал это не доказательства.
WTFFFF ! one year on and only 72,000 views, this needs MORE awareness !
Nigel - legend. Richard - genius , nuff said
Their is no climate change that is of any urgency . The climate changes we experienced this far are common in the long term.
So you feel unconcerned that the rate of sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s, according to the World Meteorological Organization? That high tide flooding along the southern U.S.has leaped 400%--1100% since the year 2000, according to NOAA? That heatwaves have tripled, according to the EPA, and that marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern? That hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades, according to multiple studies?
4r8
Excellent 👍🏽🇺🇸🏴🇬🇧
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
(Used by Planning departs, and all local City, County & State
Democratic legislators and Committees)
It was published by the UN in 1990s. In their AGENDA 21 book.
IT STATES: “Whenever a development plan or policy is “SUSPECTED” to possibly be harmful to the environment or public and in the absence of scientific “consensus “
that it is not dangerous,
the burden of proof is on the promoters of the plan to prove it is not harmful”.
It does not define WHO can have the suspicion ( for example, your neighbor ? or the environmentalist down the street ?)
It does not define what is scientific “consensus” (eg-51 % of liberal science teachers in town ?, 100% of all governmental scientists ?)
It is being used by environmentalists & globalists World wide 😂to stop building of roads & factories in 3rd world countries, stop building of Dams, to tear down Dams (Klamath Dam), to stop energy use/development (especially in poor developing countries), to stop use of NECESSARY fossil fuels everywhere without a replacement….. To make people live with LESS !!!!! ….
THE GOAL ! !
It is an Environmental Tyranny tool !!!
Thank you Doc
Brilliant
See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN.
But .. but .. but wadda -bout Al Gore . . isn't he the last word on atmospheric science? This is heresy . . and most inconvenient . . bugga.
Gore was right about nearly everything. Lindzen has been proven wrong about nearly everything, not only by 22 fellow MIT professors but by the 99.9% consensus. See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website.
Wadda-bout Gore? Have you been hiding under a rock, Mark? 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record, according to every climate data center in the world. How was Gore wrong about that?
Heatwaves have tripled, according to the EPA. How was Gore wrong?
Marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. How was Gore wrong?
Hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for forty years, according to NOAA. How was Gore wrong?
Wildfire seasons have expanded by over a month, according to the U.S. Forest Service. How was Gore wrong?
The icecaps are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history, according to NASA. How was Gore wrong?
Sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s, according to the World Meteorological Org. How was Gore wrong?
High tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has increased 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000, according to NOAA. Even the northeast, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. How was Gore wrong?
Extreme precipitation events and droughts are up all over the world, according to the IPCC. How was Gore wrong?
A UN bulletin last year warned that major environmental disasters around the world had nearly doubled over the previous 20 years. How was Gore wrong?
I hope you young scientist gather the strength of character to say what these men are saying.
Oh no! That Lindzen guy is insulting my apocalyptic religion !!
Yeah, Lindzen, debunked by virtually everyone in climate science, including 22 of his fellow MIT professors in atmospheric sciences, as well as Skeptical Science, the most reliable site for climate science on the internet. Vet your sources before you believe them.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 The problem is your 'everyones' who 'debunk' his work are virtually scientific nobodies, while Dr. Lindzen spent his whole life studying the earth's atmosphere. He also describes very well how he saw the growth since the 1970s of the cancer of pseudo 'climate science' our Western societies (10% of the world's population, that is) have to endure these days with its devastating effects on our economies. And I'm afraid the '22 fellow MIT professors' you claim don't support Dr. Lindzen's view are part of the problem, which is definitely political, a political suicide, and has nothing to do with any climate or any science whatsoever. Oh, by the way, as I notice your handle, it is high time people in the West realized (or 'tilted swiflty') the 90% of humanity doesn't believe in their 'climate science', and for good reasons: it has nothing to do with science. The Western education system, at its highest level, is totally sick with the cancer of corruption and suicidal policies. China, India, Africa... every country in the world who does not belong to the suicidal neurosis of the West and who want to economically develop and bring to their own people the level of comfort the West has known for some time now thanks to the 'bad' fossil fuel energies. Vet your own brain first before you write such insults against real scientists like Dr. Lindzen.
Enjoyed the presentation. Anyone who went to college understands one can like or dislike the quality of the lecture; however, the fact that "climate change" is complete BS, liberal propaganda, is obvious. A simple review of US temperature records, tidal gauges, changes in CO2 levels, severe storm records, etc will tell you there is no relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and air temperature. The US had hot temperatures in the 1930's and a cooling trend in the 1970's. Everyone was concerned in the 70's about a possible mini-ice age coming. But all these temperature records have been "doctored" to create the famous "hockey stick". If the climate change conversation never happened, the scientific data would tell us nothing of any significance is going on, except the positive benefits of a greener world.
The scientific consensus on climate change is confirmed by TEN studies. TEN. Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus, 2016; Powell, 2018; Cornell University, 2021. Cornell's audit of the literature itself (over 88000 climate studies published in the years 2012-2020) found a 99.9% consensus.
The consensus is also endorsed by 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's scientific institutions. What are you missing, Joe?
By contrast, Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist who knows nothing about climatology, although a sad case of hubris has convinced him that he does. Lindzen has also been roundly debunked in the scientific literature and publicly refuted by 22 of his fellow MIT professors. To get an idea of just how badly Lindzen misrepresents the science, see CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website.
Keep in mind that Lindzen loves being on the fringe, which is why for years he defended the tobacco industry against claims that smoking causes cancer. He also insisted that he'd never received a penny from the oil industry but was exposed for doing exactly that during a bankruptcy hearing for Peabody Energy. Always vet your sources before you believe them, Joe, and ALWAYS, ALWAYS seek out rebuttals before forming opinions.
Every western, democratic politician and their media henchmen should listen to this lecture.
Lindzen is broadly debunked in the scientific literature, which you can see at CLIMATE MISINFORMTION BY SOURCE: RCHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website. 22 of his fellow MIT professors in atmospheric sciences also publicly refuted his views in a jointly signed letter to president Trump. By contrast, ten separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change which, according to the latest audit of the scientific literature by Cornell University, is now 99.9%.
This is not a scientific lecture, but a political column of opinion. People liking this might find comfort and confirmation of previously held ideas, but they hardly learned anything new. It's 85% politics and 15% oversimplified technical arguments. It suffers of (it projects) many of the flaws that the speaker is denouncing the "climate narrative" for, such as mixing politics with scientific debate, confusion between weather and climate, oversimplification, misrepresented claims, an 'us-vs-them'/'elite-vs-poor' narrative, cherry-picking quotes and abuse of "ordinary people's" scientific illiteracy. I would respect a scientific analysis supporting the opposite view to anthropogenic climate change, with sound evidence and models and hypotheses and conclusions, as anything in science is subject to questioning, revision, debate and healthy skepticism. This is not such analysis.
Absolutely right.
Allow me to prefer Dr. Lindzen's sound evidence, scientific reasoning and lifetime experience in observing atmosphere AND proponents of 'climate change'. Oh, I forgot of course, you don't allow anyone to differ from your apocalyptic, nauseous religious dogmas.
@@bubblefroggy1 Lindzen has been debunked by virtually everyone in climate science. You'd know that if you actually read the scientific literature.
This guy is just the successor of Seitz and Singer. Please go have a look at their claims and their involvement into the climate change debate as well as passive smoking, acid rain, temperature raise et cetera. Also see the debate against Santer.
If you wanna know the truth, read merchants of doubt
PEACE AND LOVE failed, and now war and fear fail. What lesson can we get our of this? On which ever side we stand to be right when we give the image to be perfect; to be wrong and give the image we are perfect?.Both have the same type of results, just as much as tears of joy taste the same as tears of sorrow.
If we intend to create problems, even when doing so not consciously, we can surround ourselves with dysfunctions, and have our narratives and actions backfire: it is hard to appreciate that embracing positive perfection is socially and mentally harmful:; to agree and integrate this simple principle would see major interactive improvements.
Non-scientific Humanities are less and less available. Another aspect is that anyone good at maths, at exponential formulas, has the abstractive ability to deal with Philosophies. It does not help when Scientists want to give an illusion of total domination as was radical superstition in the past. Toxic gurus, of all kinds, use generic darkness when aiming at controlling and greed is a faceless part of the conditioning! It is not possible to remain positive without facing darkness, what psychologists call 'shadows'.
Deep.
Toxic Guru!!! An absolutely crystal clear description of Fauci-Mengele!!!
The "coastal station locations" at 50:23 is irrelevance because the increase in ocean depth over regions of 100 x 100 km (altimeters) and 300 x 300 km (weighing the ocean water from space) throughout the entire ocean is measured since 2002. Coastlines are irrelevant to this physical science ocean topic since then, only relevant for humans (for social - ahem - "science", for wealth).
its remarkable how disassociated Richard seems ...He is clearly an expert on the physics of climate system forcing , and meteorological cycles,atmosphjeric and thermal mass exchanges and circulation patterns.. ... however, when he started speaking about politics I started feeling queezy..as if he was talking about his own reflection .. This quasi "zen-stoic" mindset Richard exhibits... is in my opinion incredibly Nihilistic ...
Yes...the earth and planets and stars will all change for eons and we can not do anything to influence that...however...propagating an outlook that is OK with the annihilation of our species and many, many others is rather grimy.. They say, Never trust a Doctor who smokes heavily...to give you health advice..Richard Lindson seems to be battling his own self reinforcing feedback loops.
When you are dependent on a "Neolithic" person operating in their natural environment, you quickly realise how ignorant modern people are outside of their particular specialisations.., but what is frustrating is that there is no good reason for that because of the learned ability to reduce situations to basic principles. This is another aspect-version of the Measurement Problem that is mostly a problem of correct identification of phenomena without which dealing with the problem is "not even wrong". (So familiar in politics)
By default, this means practically all the problem is political by way of ignoring the actual cause-effect phenomenon that might be leveraged through appropriate policies.
This is a natural state of human behaviour, opportunity knocks on the individual doors, the rest becomes "The tragedy of the Commons". Ie militarism holds the common good hostage and exploits the scientifically unqualified-unquantified imaginations preparing for the wrong "worst".
MAD Mentality political machinations will destroy the world of humanity long before the planet goes lifeless.
The "Global Mafia" is, in Principle, the cause-effect of human problems, as is abundantly exhibited, even if we are buried in the "Code of Silence". All the other "Atmospherics" are short-term disinformation using the best quality Sciencing Re-search practices.
Ie Financial Capitalism is the Forever War Game of predator-prey relationships in a fundamentally Parasitic connection of Gaian Planetary Ecology, scientific accuracy is the refined technique applied to political fraud, used in "Culture War". It's so confused, that the labelling may rally a "rent-a-crowd" temporarily, but the predictions and promises are all delusion.., in the face of a 50X capability to eliminate the enemy of Mutually Assumed Destruction.
What does this mean?
What I find frustrating is that the climate alarmists, and even the scientists are not prepared to debate the science , data and evidence with reputable people like Richard Lindzen. The science is settled they say. The science is rarely settled.
Thanks for this presentation. It is best to go easy and not offend people if you don't absolutely need to in order to educate them. I think you did that. I may have missed several points I think makes the faulty ALGOREISM / ALGORETHYTHM message fall apart. Seems like 1: there is warming, now 2: there has been warming in the past, and cooling (courtesy of Mother Nature, as is current happenings) 3:the current warming is causing sea level rise 4: the portion of CO2 produced by Man-Made activities is a very very small part of what is tipping the warming. 5: the benefit of fossil fuels (with the nearly negligent negative result) is worth more to humanity than letting power-hungry governments run us into the ground. 6: CO2 is the lifeline of LIFE ON EARTH. Cannot go much below where we are now and still produce enough food for everyone.
Not many young people in the audience,,,too bust being woke
Well prof, right or wrong, you have little skin in the game
"climate is not very sensitive" at 51:24 and the following part is totally unexplained as to meaning so it's literally meaningless. By "climate is not very sensitive" does Lindzen mean "tropical cyclones is not very sensitive" or "droughts is not very sensitive" or "torrential downpours is not very sensitive" or what ? Apparently, somebody said something about something that Lindzen disagrees with but I've literally not a clue what he's on about because he doesn't bother himself to say what he's on about - permafrost thaw ? droughts ? floods ? cyclones ? WHAT ? I'll never know what it is that's "not very sensitive" (Lindzen quote) owing to I'm not a gifted telepath.
As someone who does follow the climate debate and up with the science, I didn’t find this lecture particularly informative.
I absolutely agree our political class are scientifically illiterate and yet push scientific based agenda.
Even our population push climate change based upon an emotional argument rather than science.
It has also got to a stage where those scientists that push climate change no longer debate the science. In their arrogance they believe the science is settled. The science is never settled.
Climate change is happening. And man may certainly be responsible for it. But in my opinion blaming all this on co2 is complete fallacy and actually very dangerous. Therefore the use of co2 in this climate debate is about other agenda.
Yes co2 is a greenhouse gas but of less importance to water vapour, albedo, milankovitch cycles, earths heat engine, solar radiation and cosmic rays, etc.
Over 350,000 climate studies have been published in the last fifty years. That's sounds like pretty solid science to me, not "emotional argument." How many of those studies have you read? If the answer is NONE, you can hardly argue that they're based on "emotional argument," right?
Of the over 88000 studies published in the last ten years, 99.9% agree that human activity is driving global warming. That's according to the latest audit of the scientific literature itself by Cornell University. (Look it up at Cornell's website) Their audit confirms a similar audit performed in 2019, which found a 100% consensus. Do cite your data, Nicholas, that refutes all those studies. I'd love to see it.
It is indeed "settled science" that the earth is warming. It's "settled science" that human activity, not nature, is fueling 100% of that warming as well. It's settled science that 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record, and that the icecaps are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history; that sea level is rising, high tide flooding is increasing, wildfire seasons are expanding, extreme precipitation events and drought are increasing, heatwaves have tripled and marine heatwaves are up 20-fold.
C02-driven warming accelerates evaporation, which fills the atmosphere with additional water vapor, which then acts synergistically in a feedback loop with C02 to warm the planet further. That warming then melts permafrost, which releases methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than C02. The continued warming then melts ice and reduces albedo, in yet another synergistic feedback loop that increases warming still further. C02 simply does not work alone to warm the planet; its feedback effects are far more powerful than C02 alone.
Yes, it's obvious to any serious people that want to learn about the science that arrogance, ego, politics, self righteousness, and funding has been corrupting the field and preventing any chance of real discussions about the actual science. I agree. To me, this focus on Co2 is clearly an anti-fossil fuel position that people had prior to Al Gore and Michael Mann. Michael Mann and Al Gore were just able to say to those people with that position "we are right. Look at this. We were right to harp on air pollution from fossil fuels because of the this:" And the crazy thing is that the elites talk about hydrogen now because it is so clean and doesn't emit Co2, but what it does give off is water vapor which has more of a greenhouse effect than Co2. And "they" (environmentalists) were originally really anti-strip mining because it tore up the land, but they replaced it with windmills that need much more land and never go away. The whole discussion just feels like "we were right and you were wrong" and that is the only thing that matters.
I too would like to see more level headed people just discuss and debate the actual science which is most definitely not settled and will never be "settled". James Hansen model is carried around like he was dead right, but he wasn't. His modeling was good, but no modeling is ever "dead right" and his modeling proved to be too sensitive to Co2, which in 20 years makes a big difference and in 50 years it makes it wrong, especially considering Co2 has a diminishing effect the higher it gets.
Love it … climate lies need to be tackled head on
A fine example of Rhetorical Argument. Ie no substantiation in Principle.
At 12:35 "oceans exchange heat with the surface..." isn't correct on a globally-averaged scale in the sense generally understood by the masses of a hotter thing heating a cooler thing. It's because ~2/3rds of sunshine that's absorbed is absorbed into land surface but is absorbed into water throughout a depth of several metres so mostly by far it's that heat is coming out of the ocean and warming surface-air above. There are big regional exceptions notably by far the El Nino when central-east tropical Pacific can get cooler water exposed because the persistent wind skims the warmer water off and piles it up in the west, I suppose that might often cool air above just slightly if it's warm air that blew across from a warmer west Atlantic or South America, but globally on average it's just Sun ---> ocean ---> air heat flow over oceans because Sun heats ocean. I suspect that cherry-picking using the huge ENSO cycle is what he's leading up to ('ll keep listening) which is correct but would be ironic because it's Knappenberger-Michaels-Monckton-Cruz worthless drivel plot that's been by far the most applied for wealth-not-science purposes, though the opposing crooks & morons do the same a bit (I'm in the middle living happily on enough pension and without need to become a billionaire like most or achieve low-level fame/notoriety like Lindzen and finding the actual physical science enjoyable, human stuff is total boring shit, these final 10 years before I kick the bucket).
Do you own a buffet? Because that was a world salad grampa.