140. Climate Alarmism w/ Professor Richard Lindzen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 май 2024
- Richard Lindzen is professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he joins us to offer his scientific expertise on climate alarmism. He discusses how his background in physics and meteorology leads him to conclude that the alarmism around climate is unjustified, and we discuss how institutional and financial reasons have made fiat scientists so keen to promote an agenda of fear and panic. We discuss the problems with the academic publication industry, as well as Professor Lindzen’s experience as a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and where that led him. He also shares his most recent work on communicating his research ideas publicly.
🔗👇🏼
Professor Lindzen’s recent paper ‘The Assessment of The Conventional Global Warming Narrative” for which he welcomes comments:
www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa...
Professor Lindzen’s profile on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology website:
eapsweb.mit.edu/people/rlindzen
Transcript of 2018 Prof Lindzen’s Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture:
www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa...
Professor Lindzen speaking at the 2017 At the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit:
www.heritage.org/energy-econo...
CO2 coalition website:
co2coalition.org/
Newsweek cover in 1998 earth on fire:
co2coalition.org/wp-content/u...
Article on 97% of scientists agree with consensus in WSJ:
www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-b...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifedean’s first book, The Bitcoin Standard:
saifedean.com/thebitcoinstandard
Saifedean’s second book, The Fiat Standard:
saifedean.com/thefiatstandard
Enjoyed this episode? You can take part in podcast seminars, access Saifedean’s courses and read chapters of his forthcoming books by becoming a Saifedean.com member. Find out more here:
saifedean.com/membership/ 
Развлечения
Good to hear an authoritative voice of reason. There is no climate crisis.
See Lindzen's talking points utterly destroyed at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN. Then check out how 22 of his fellow MIT atmospheric scientists publicly rebuked him, at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES.
Every serious scientists I listen to is now saying the Climate Scare is NOT TRUE! Yet the carbon tax and the spending for electrified buses etc. continues stupidly...
And those "serious" scientists are?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481You seem to be a troll or you are not listening, besides it’s up to you to find these remarkable scientists if you are really interested, but I don’t think you are.
ELEVEN 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. In 2021, Cornell University audited the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving global warming. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a dangerous degree.
The "serious" scientists you know are likely to have received funded by the fossil fuel industry (William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Joseph Bast, Anthony Watts, to name a few) or to be profoundly debunked in the scientific literature (John Clauser, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Ian Plimer (heavily invested on the coal indutry) Patrick Moore, Pat Michaels, and Steve Koonin, a former employee of British Petroleum.
Over 39000 "serious" scientists contributed to the over 13,500 studies cited in the last IPCC report. By contrast, many of the contrarians don't even publish studies and have never worked in the field.
Over 90% of buses in China now are electric. Their EVS now cost LESS than gasoline cars. EVs are already superior to ICE cars. Sadly, a large portion of the American public is unaware of that fact due to ubiquitous fossil fuel industry propaganda.
The fact that the UN runs the IPCC, should make everyone question their findings. The goal is globalization of economies. The most recent declaration of climate reparations for poor nations is something that has been on the agenda for a long time. The climate scare is simply the vehicle to try and legitimize a transfer of wealth. The money train from the central governments runs deep. Our own NOAA has manipulated the climate records to meet the desired outcomes. It’s actually quite sinister. The media and general public have no chance to learn the truth. They are fed BS by government agencies and paid off scientists. And now the social media giants have been co-opted to amplify the false claims. The saddest part are the young people who are so scared out of their wits about a climate disaster that many don’t want children. There’s lots of depression and anxiety. But, the instigators don’t care. The end justifies the means and the end is centralized control.
perfect encapsulation Mark, thanks!
The UN, WEF and the WHO also want to depopulate the earth these people are totally evil
Perhaps more sinister than you realise. The IAEA list the IPCC first in their list of international collaborators, and given the preposterous claim that nuclear is low-CO2, it is easy to work out that the purpose of CO2 dogma is to eliminate fossils, bad-mouth renewables and create a bogus power shortage only New Nuclear can then fill. Without this criminal conspiracy, New Nuclear would lose out in the cut-throat energy market to cheap fossils and clean, cheap renewables, and the weapons industry would have to produce nuclear raw materials under its own steam, without nuclear power generation - "Atoms for Peace" as the front. No surprise, then, that the Department of Energy were heavily implicated in the ClimateGate scandal. This whole thing comes from big nuclear weapons nations lobbying the UN, and fear of oil-producers again holding the world to ransom, as they did in the 1970s. If that sounds unlikely, work this one out:
independentwho.org/en/
I hope Richard Lindzen lives long enough to have a good laugh at the climate hysteria, for our sake, we need all the good minds we can get.
But we still have to clean up the messes that we, humanity, make ! Polution, Vegetation loss, over exploitation etc.
He won't, judging by his tobacco habit.
@@linmal2242 From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth-nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect
we have already had a good laugh at Gore that little girl if she is still identifying as such.
@@plattbarber3825 Who? Gretta Doomsberg?
Dr. Linzden, thank you so much for your heroic efforts to get out the truth. We Americans are lucky to still have professors like you. Keep talking, and get on TV, repeatedly.
For historical perspective : Lyssenko official science
Notice virtually all these true experts, like Richard Lindzen, Will Happer,or Bill Gray are professors emeritus with tenure. It is virtually impossible to be involved in any study of climate and receive any funding without being a climate change fanatic Consequently, the majority of people are looking at this by definition have to be catastrophists to survive in academia.
Well done Richard Lindzen! It is essential that a way is found to get a proper understanding of climate physics. Good luck with your efforts!
Both episodes 138 and 140 with climate professors not going along with state-agenda were great.
Biden (and Trump before) is beggiing for more drilling. Congress subsidizes fossil fuels far more than solar. Meanwhile human activity dumps 27,397,260 tons of CO2, CH4, N20, and Fluorinated gases DAILY.
The State agenda is "drill baby drill".
Seeing professor Lindzen talking with cigar in hand just made my day. A lot of respect.
A decade or so ago, "Agenda with Steve Pakin" program interviewed Prof. Lindzden. I think it's still on RUclips. It's good to review that interview, too.
@@seanleith5312Why? What impresses you about someone smoking a cigar? Let me guess. You don't believe the science that shows that smoking causes cancer.
@@markpalmer8083 I quited years ago. I am afraid of dying too. but still want to share the joy of smoking,
Professor Lindzen is spot on with the deliberate installation of ludicrous pre-suppositions in the narrative. We get the 'sensible' commentators, such a Bjorn Lomborg, arguing we should tackle the problem of CO2 in a more rational manner. There is NO problem with CO2!
This is the thing. CO2 400ppm, 450ppm. It's no problem. In fact a warmer climate means less heating needed in cold weather and therefore less CO2 emission. All these people "I used to see snow but no longer"... so what? No snow no need for heating, much more pleasant weather to be out and about in.
It’s actually tragic.Government interference in the sciences has led to some disastrous consequences.I began studying this topic 5 years ago simply out of curiosity.I have no financial interest in whether anthropogenic “global warming “ is dangerous or not,but have concluded that this Co2 warming is nonsense and represents no connection to truth.This impact of Co2 was shown to be very minor a hundred years ago by Max Planck and Karl Schwartzchild but apparently these conclusions have been ignored by many “climatologists “ since the admission of this would cost them their livelihood.
Intelligent and insightful conversation with someone who has the experience and knowledge to back up what he says.
I love this guy , he and Dr.Robert Malone are not afraid to speak the truth supported by facts in the face of adversity, God Bless them !
Fantastic interview. Truth has a way of coming out and fools have a way of showing themselves. I spent years in environmental work in the high tech field. I covered Industrial Hygiene, all sorts of hazardous materials and such. I only have a AS degree and filled in with specialized training programs with UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz that covered EH&S as it applied to my jobs. I was privileged to work with some very talented people which also helped me. Then I moved into the laser industry dealing with the same issues. I met some men who we’re working with the government regarding the effects of atmospheric effects on laser beams. I believe this was to help with the development of laser weapons for the military. Although the company I worked for focused more with applications that helped with surgical techniques and laser diodes and propagation of laser beams through fiber optics. Amazing technologies and brilliant people. So when this climate change was being pushed, I tried my best to put 2+2 together and felt that the whole business was suspect in my mind. Guess I’m a doubting Thomas. To put in a more direct way, being a former outlaw biker, don’t piss down my back and tell me it is raining. Too many lemmings in this world today. Thanks for your time
I started following climate change back when it was "global cooling". Some years after, it surprisingly shifted to Warming I started noticing that policy flew in the face of scientific method; un-favored ideas and data were censored, ideas were no longer debated, but were declared either the absolute truth or absolute lies, ad hominem attacks abounded from the Left.
Modelling... "A boring version of SimCity." Saifedean for the win!
My humble gratitude for all you both endure in the name of science and human flourishing.
Would be great to do a whole show made up of all the “Sock Puppetry as Modeling.” It’s an issue I never hear people talking about, yet it’s used to manufacture consent for 90% of Central Planner’s crimes.
This is the most enlightening discussion I have viewed in a long time. Professor Lindzen is a humble gentleman who disguises his immense knowledge. Thank you, Saifedean.
Exactly, people in Europe will not accept that they have been mislead, until people start dying. I know you think my view is extreme. I go with my good lady wife for our weekly shop. Every time the is more and more empty spaces on the shelves. I was born in Finland, moved to Australia. I always said, "we do not live in Russia we do not line up for food, or even hardware" Well here we are inches away from having to line up for....toilet paper.. rice... eggs....meat....These are shortages this week 6/12/ 22
I've always loved Lindzen, because he has genuine depth of knowledge of the field and entered it well before the AGW hysteria was a thought. He just loves the field of atmospheric physics, so when these political types became involved well on into his career he saw them for the frauds that they were. I'm sure he sees them in as a thorn in the side of the actual science.
1/1/23
Lindzen was a witness for tobacco companies decades ago, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Yep. He used to lie that tobacco smoking carried no health risks, Now he lies about the impacts and causes of global warming. It is no wonder why he works for Heartland and Cato now. He hasn't published any fresh research in climate science in over 30 years.
@@rps1689 good thing scientists use computer models which are never wrong...
@@republikadugave420 All numerical models are “wrong” per se, which Includes the models we use to design spacecraft and chips that work right the first time. They are “wrong” because correctness is a matter of degree, not a binary on or off thing. These models in the hands of experts who understand their limitations deliver useful results. Everybody knows the CMIP5 and 6 models run that doesn't mean they're worthless. The observations have been inside the projection cones for fifty years. The models are right enough. Enough to form a reliable guide to potential climate change, and have predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence.
They're just tools that are attempts to understand the data either in terms of specific reactions or in historical terms. They are basically convenient "fictions" that have given us a better understanding of the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere plus global patterns in the ocean, atmosphere, and records of the types of weather that occurred under similar patterns in the past, and they have reduced the uncertainty of climate change impacts, which aids in adaptation to name a few.
@@rps1689 last bunch of GCM's used in CMIP6 are all affected by large uncertainties. Their ECS's vary from 1.8C to 5.7C, with the exception of a couple; however, those are
not perfect either. Those that are the best only predict approximately 1.8C to 3.0C warming from Pre-Industrial to 2050, or about 150 years (Low ECS models), but even their failure rate is >60%. The higher the ECS, the higher the failure rate (High ECS models have >81% failure rate). So how are these failure rates calculated, you might ask. It's simple, you take the model and take actual inputs from previous years and compare their result to what actually happened. The best models currently are using much higher solar forcings (not just irradiance, btw). Simply put, these models have cut the error margins of previous models which use a constant solar input (or close to it) and a high sensitivity to CO2. Apparently, some of the CMIP6 modelers routinely go back and "adjust" the input/output to correlate with observed results so they look acceptable. But taking their actual predictions, they have failed miserably and are getting worse! All CMIP6 models ran hot (2C to 6C). The large ECS uncertainty is due to the poor physical understanding of various feedback mechanisms such as water vapor and cloudiness along with poor understanding of the comprehensive effects of solar energy (magnetic storms, etc). These apparently have a surprisingly large effect on the entire radiative transport process. Much more grist for the IPCC mill to deal with (or ignore).
Additionally, the body of the science work in AR6 is pretty good, as I understand; however, the Executive Summary exaggerates the severity of the warming along with amplified imagination of the imminent danger from weather extremes, etc. It's hogwash.
Good, but I tuned in to listen to Richard Lindzen. It might have been better to be able to hear Lindzen speak at greater length, without so many interruptions...
Interviewer had too big ego.
I agree, we would like to listen to Professor Richard Lindzen more and not being interrupted so often.
Richard Lindzen is an absolute beast!
We need a figure like him to counteract the climate change extremists. I hope he lives to a hundred!
He's 82 and still sharp as hell, one of the smartest guys I've studied.
A very interesting interview. Thanks for publishing it.
A decade or so ago, "Agenda with Steve Pakin" program interviewed Prof. Lindzden. I think it's still on RUclips. It's good to review that interview, too.
I am worried that the EU farmers have had such a hard job to get the elites to relax their views without changing their minds.
Great interview. I will be sharing this link.
I appreciate you doing this video.. but I wish you would of properly interviewed this MIT climate professor.. instead you went on long unnecessary monologues as if he was interviewing you..
I get you want people to respect your own knowledge.. but this was way too much into the ego sphere my friend..
I felt you missed a fantastic opportunity to really extract some gems from this experienced professor..
You were more interested in blowing your own horn and trying to sell your wares..
Audiences are far more discerning than you may realise.. be authentic, it shines through and you will gain a bigger following.
I concur with your assessment... and SA should have let Richard stay more focused on his thoughts on the Topic of Climate Alarmism...
Straight to the point!
Maybe he needs more time to grow more humble.:)
I totally agree with you, when the guest is a scientist of this quality, we the audience want to listen to him, not the interviewer, too many interruptions and self talk.
Your Happer, and Lindzen interviews are AWESOME! Keep it coming.
Thanks for recap and analysis of a dire situation.
Very, very interesting. Beautiful minds and languages.
Thank You Saifedean
EXCELLENT discussion. Thank you.
This guy is amazing!
Well done! It would be very interesting to have a talk with someone supporting the abiotic oil theory.
See Joseph Olson.
Anyone speaking to the abiotic oil theory would hopefully cover the movement of oil from high pressure spaces to low pressure spaces underground. Extracted oil surely brings the pressure down underground, and thus over time oil can seep into that place of low pressure.
It is an interesting hypothesis.Funny we call it “fossil fuels” when no fossils have ever been discovered in oil and gas deposits.
This resonated with me really quite a bit. Very fascinating insights into free market and what's gone wrong with our civilization. I always suspected there was a huge parasitic drain on the economy and your arguments are right on point. Thank you for this, subscribed!
You guys need to read J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. It was an early refutation of modernism.
@14.18 is the definitive heart if the problem. How money overwhelmed and destroyed scientific method.
33:17 This brought that iconic scene into my mind, when little trueman was @ school and dreaming of becoming an explorer. 😢
Just love Richard. Wonderful man. Enjoyed this. Thank you both.
You should also interview Professor Ian Plimer.
Both the William Happer and Richard Lindzen discussions I've listened to. William Happer as guest was able to talk about climate far more than Lindzen. Out of the 120min podcast the Climate Alarmism topic was only around 15-20min.
Then out of the whole of this podcast rather than an ideal ratio of a good host/guest percentage is 20/80% where host asks questions to draw the information from the guest. But in this particular podcast I needed to look at who was the guest and host as we heard more about your book, your peeves, more about bitcoin, and other topics, rather than about the topic of Climate Alarmism.
I lost interest around the same time as Prof Lindzen did by the sound of it. At 75min of the podcast we had 40min of the host talk. That's over 50% far more than what it should be. Thanks, but I've not come to listen to the host I came to listen to the guest.
I think the same. Don't understand what the people are going to hype. Probably they are happy when they see illustration of their figure. Interviewers should be professional and prepare more to create interesting setup. Good time would be 45-60 minutes. There are too many wannabe podcasters nowadays just to make money.
@@pekde It's not that I expect all podcasters to be professional, but they should have at least rudimentary understanding of what draws audience in and keeps audiences returning. When they have guests on a show it's the guests that are the drawcard. When they wish to talk about a subject themselves, fine you don't need guests to fill in. Do a shorter succinct cast.
Podcasters just need to know the basics like proper mic use/placement, host/guest ratio, etc. Experience and professionalism comes over time. 👍
I saw an interesting measure of schools, which is to count the number of students plus teachers and compare them to the number of bureaucrats/administrators; the higher the proportion of B/A to S+T, the less efficient the school will be.
I gather Prof. Lindzen gave you some books to read. Could you share the list with us?
The economic arguments thrown in with this discussion about climate change offers and insight into the minds of the Austrian school and libertarian capitalism, in that it argues against centralised ownership of resources and how that limits effetive growth and yet in all standard capitalist societies a relative few own and conrtrol the means of production. Not sure what Mises really wanted or how he saw his current society as it was the same or similar then.
Nobody ever explains why the Europeans abandoned windmills, moving to water power to grind their seeds then to steam then to the internal combustion engine? What ever persuaded us to do it all over again? Don't we ever learn?
James Lindsay’s speech to the EU Parliament on how woke is exploited to further the aims of cultural and economic Marxism seeks to put it all into one context.
Thanks.
I need to look another interview about prof. Lindzen. I didn't get much out of this. Could be summarized in 15 minutes. Not all of us have time to listen hours and hours of discussion with a lot of offtopics. At least we are not paid for that. Many podcasters think the longer the interview is the better. No, should be max. 45 mins to keep the concentration up. Needs preparation to have the key topics and experience to lead the situation for the guest.
thank you . this farce has to be exposed
Biden policy is "drill baby drill". Trump's too! That is where the farce lies.
We do imaging work in the IR range. It used to be simple to get a light source, now we are restricted to Halogen bulbs with limited choice.
Now we have Light Emitting Diode bulbs that are even better :-)
"Twitter has made me a much better writer." This is an eternal truth in spite of, no, the better for the metaverse
Good grief. What is that about glucose, insulin and diabetes? I remember my mother in the late 1960's watching me put three spoons of sugar in my tea and saying I should not eat so much sugar as I might get diabetes. Seems this was common knowledge back then. But no, on my only trip to the USA a few years ago I was shocked at how much sugar there is in almost every product in the supermarkets.
Now just like covid warnings, you have climate change warnings! Sheesh.. 😅
These have been on YT for years.
The comments on "modeling" at the end of the show were very important. I spent a 30 year career employing computer models to manage complex supply chains.
The idea that a highly complex, dynamic (i.e., changing WITH TIME) multi-variate system - such as a supply chain, and EVEN MORE SO CLIMATE - can be "optimized' by paying attention to a single variable (e.g., CO2) is ridiculously ignorant.
Stop using model data for inference. Use actual data.
But then, that does NOT fit the narrative!
Great interview.
At end with block chain. Who has access to the password. Who could add another 50,000 bitcoin for example?
Is it like main Internet root servers and how are these people chosen?
Bitcoin is simply a virtual ledger that anyone with internet access can download. The ledger is self audited approximately every 10 minutes which is coded into the software. To ‘hack’ bitcoin, change the code or fraudulently amend new transactions in the ledger, even for a short period of time, would take a significant amount of time, energy and money making it the most secure network in the world, also because there is no centralized entity which exists to control. Aantonop has some good youtube videos ill try and link below.
ruclips.net/video/ncPyMUfNyVM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/UlKZ83REIkA/видео.html
Lately I was looking 4 a simple bulb 4 my lava lamp and just simply was shocked about the lille options left I found. And I thought by myself: Soon this will be true of many products we all were used 2 buy and use without thinking much about... 🙄
The tropics absorb heat, north of 30 degrees heat is radiated into to space. - Tom Nelson podcast.
O.04% CO2 in the gas atmosphere is essential for photosynthesis to occur whereby plants break down the water molecule to produce carbohydrates that are animal food. Thus plants and animals exists in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Without CO2 all life would die off. It has been going on for the past 4 billion years.
You should bring Dr. John Christy on next!
John Christy conflates religion and science. He is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geological history."
Why bother. Christy is dishonest. There is a reason why Christy and Heller plot the centre path, not the whole cone, when they want to deceive you about how accurate the GCMs have actually been. Even had the gall to show that plot, without the cones, to a congressional committee under oath.
I wish you spoke less and actually interviewed Richard. We don't need to know everything about what you know and what your achievements are. Your ego just got in your way.
I understand your point, but I think with today’s climate catastrophe pushers and those who are on the other side, it’s better to know the credibility and experience of who they are listening to. He’s been called a climate denier as well, so it’s good to present his background to the listeners. But yes…I get what you’re saying in general. Be well.
Exactly. And sometimes it seemed like he was insisting the professor was wrong while not letting him correct things.
@@pekde yes, yes agreed.
Starts in 2:55
What’s with all the advertising at the start? Almost switched off there as it was way too much, so fast forwarded through that junk as this guy has something interesting to say and shares the views of others like Prof John Christie and other climatologists who say the same thing. We’re being lied to by the climate change lobby. Great to listen to such a refreshing and enlightening take on the whole climate change agenda.
The net results if all of these costly. climate change policies on economies has been catastrophic. In the uk we are now in fuel poverty with insubstantial power security, huge energy bills and a wrecked economy. Economy is fuelled by…errr…fuel! Industry needs it, healthcare needs it, security needs it yet we are strangling our own welfare and pushing ourselves into poverty in the most surreal nightmarish idiocy unfolding before us , the exact opposite by the industrial revolution, because of foul, corrupted world politics and politicians. I have come to loathe and distrust all politicians. This is also fuelled by communist parties worldwide to destabilise the West and it’s working. People need to wake up and smell the coffee…follow the dollars.
But one has to listen to it to know how they're lying to us. When we know how, we can figure out what motivates their lies. One has to study how the con artist, scammer and psychopath work in order to stop them.
I hope that the predicted 40-50 year cooling period based on reduced solar output, which may have already started, is confirmed if only to see what the alarmists say about it. They're probably already working on their talking points. The Keeling Curve was unaffected by the pandemic world wide economic shutdown/slowdown. One theory has it that the current CO2 rise is all about the oceans releasing CO2 due to the 800 year ago medieval warm period and the CO2 lag. CO2 is soluble in water so the CO2 paleorecord from the Vostok cores has been shown to be very low in comparison to reality so the famed 280 ppm pre-industrial value may be very low due to solubility and losses before the ice surface solidified the bubbles into the record. Stomata density is probably a better proxy record.
As a nuclear fusion reactor, the sun is remarkably stable, never altering it output by more than about a half a degree up or down, even during the grandest of solar minimums and maxiums. A GSM would hardly make a dent in global warming and only a temporary one at that.
~31:55 - Core issue here, Ayn Rand's saying about ignorance comes to mind.
By creating a climate crisis and then declaring the alleged cause, carbon dioxide, to be a pollutant, enables the ability to tax that which produces it, i.e. fossil fuels. Ergo we have carbon credits for businesses and fossil fuel taxes for consumers. Politicians give this boon to those who will later reward them in turn. Regardless, all these costs are eventually passed along to the lower and middle classes. Note this is only happening in what is considered the West, i.e. Europe, Great Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. None of the BRICS nations are supportive of this and indeed are on a fossil fuel burning power plant building spree. China has plans for 3,500 power plants and is halfway to their goal. India plans over 1,000 while African nations want an estimated 1,200 clean coal-fired plants. Russian plans are unknown however they control a sizable portion of fossil fuel reserves. If the West continues on this path they will quite literally be the cause of their own destruction. We're already seeing this in Germany .
By using BLINKIT on the endless stream of scientific papers, all can be read in a lifetime. ;-)
One of my heroes
You need to get out more.
After the FTX cryptocurrency collapse I will be staying away from Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for now.
Or maybe this video is your best!
it is good to hear ally affect eeryone
The interviewer drones on hardly allowing Richard Lindzen to speak.
I don't worry for 1 second of my life about climate change.
It's totally unscientific to do all the turbines and solar.
You may not be interested in climate change, but the climate change mafia are interested in you.
For the Tommy Gold related question, I would recommend looking into the lack of evidence that dinosaurs even existed.
do you have a link?
Gold was just a sad idiot, who also believed in a static universe along with Fred Hoyle
@@johnbatson8779 - plenty of idiots hold interesting ideas... Including you.
Are you struggling to find any fossils?
@@billiebruv - no. You?
I thought it was common knowledge oil doesn't come from Dinosaurs but from dead plant material at a time when there were no enzymes (or whatever) to break them down.
Crude oil was formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, bacteria, and algae.
@@rps1689 Exactly. In the past those materials did not break down like they do today. Instead they layered and over millions of years turned into oil.
@@outofcompliance1639 The extensive interval of time occupied by the geologic history of our planet is fascinating. Have you ever read, "A History of Earth in 100 Ground Breaking Discoveries"?
@@rps1689 No I haven't heard of that, I will check it out. Maybe it is on Audible. I have a few credit to spend there.
@@outofcompliance1639 Check it out, it might even have a update ebook version. Mine was published in 2011.
I think if government hadn't got involved we might be much closer solving climate change. A certain amount of government is needed for some regulations on certain things. Allowing a free for all in the private sector doesn't work, nor does over regulation, which big government seems to always do. When government gains to much power and reach it becomes corrupt. This seems to be the problem, or one of the problems, with socialism and communism.
The earth's climate has always been changing for the last 4 billion years with or without humans
@@frankwolstencroft8731 True, climate has always changed since earth was formed. Humans are not the cause. It's possible we are speeding up the process so might be a good idea to lessen our foot print. Still, some things I've seen since I made that comment have convinced me that the push for "green" is more political and connected to the one world government agenda. Batteries, wind and solar aren't as "green" as claimed. Considering the mining, processing and recycling spent products, they're not the answer to the energy needs of the planet. Nuclear is a better alternative in my opinion. Not the way we've been doing nuclear, but small modular reactors and the like.
divine central authority unity handles any climate change
Also known as Gaia.
Funny to see Lindzen have to keep gently reining in Ammous's more cynical forays into a dystopian corruption narrative. As a true scientist, he's always looking at the actual phenomena and as a result you see optimism mixed with humorous pessimism. But the more one dimensional narratives, whether on the government side or the "opposition" side, tend toward exclusively pessimistic.
18:25 feedback loops.
IPCC lead author on climate feedbacks. 1:13:40.
2:51
He’s completely right.
See Lindzen's talking points utterly destroyed at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN. Then check out how 22 of his fellow MIT atmospheric scientists publicly rebuked him, at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES.
Lysenko is alive and well in Western science.
The Austrian School has some merits, but AustraHungarian Empire is gone, and Austria did not invent nor develop the iPhone, PC, Mainframe, transistor, integrated circuits, radar, etc. etc. While the private sector under free markets is the most efficient as compared to alternative systems, the private sector does have some major weaknesses like it is not good at very long term research and developments, as private investors avoid putting money in very high risk "basic research", and very expensive projects, as private investors do not have as much money as the tax revenue obtained by the public sector. For example, US President Jefferson by promising the US tax collection as collateral was able to borrow enough money from European banks to make the Lousiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United Strates at that time, and which served as the lauching pad to expand the US westwards to eventually to the Pacific Ocean. When the US government purchased Alaska from Russia, the private sector derided it as Seaward's Folly, because Alaska at that time was practically a totally frozen empty land, that needed many decades to develop returns, which the private investors will not wait for, as it will be the following generations to see any profits. The private French company, which sucessfully built the Suez Canal, failed when it started to build the Panama Canal, as the Panama Canal was much more difficult and expensive to build. US President T. Roosevelt using the large resources of the US government was finally able to build the Panama Canel.
As I understand, Austrian economic school based on market economy. It doesn’t necessarily mean Austria follows their own economic school.
Alarming similarity with pharmaceuticals.
This was great
See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN, at the Skeptical Science website for a complete dismantling of his talking points.
1. Lindzen disputes the scientific consensus on climate change, even though it's confirmed by eleven separate studies. (Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014: Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus, 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2021; Lynas/Houlton, 2021).
2. Lindzen maintains that recent warming is due mainly to natural variability, not human activity. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not natural variability, is warming the planet.
3. 22 of his fellow MIT atmospheric scientists publicly refute his views at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES.
"As Lindzen's colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science..."
"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones...These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."
---public letter of protest against Richard Lindzen, signed by 22 of his MIT colleagues
Science is not a democracy, with the theory commanding the most votes winning.
Temperature changes at the earth's surface are caused by electromagnetic radiation from the sun
For example it gets 20 deg F colder at night
100 deg F colder from the equator to the poles
100 deg F colder from summer to winter
The oceans act as a giant heat sink
Without the oceans the earth would have the same climate as the moon.
His theories were disqualified long time ago but his ego is very high. His beliefs will die with him. Science proven by models and observations will prevail, always.
You cannot prove anything with a computer model. Empirical evidence is the only reliable way of obtaining data.
All equivalent to a Rain Dance. We still believe we did something wrong with the weather. We may have to sacrifice couple of virgins and a goat :)
Maybe when you interview someone , try interviewing them.
Freeman Dyson could have the answer about oil.
Here. Beginning. ruclips.net/video/8xFLjUt2leM/видео.html
The interviewer reminds me of a child pretending to be a grown up and know what he’s talking about. He said he was a professor 😂
why are all these first comments uncritical glowing praise? It's very creepy
It might be an interesting video but I gave up - too many advertisements.
All the adverts are at the start. Just wind it on a bit past the start.
Interesting but by advertising bitcoin you diminish its impact
Did this interviewer guy write a new book on how bit coin turned out to be a bit of a scam , fraught with fraud that’s no longer a promising enterprise at all. Lol. Did you make a new course on that buddy ?
The title of your podcast is misleading. I had to shut it off, because there was too much interplay between the two of you about the politics of being college professors. A bit would’ve been interesting, but the topic had to do with the nonsense of a climate emergency not the intricacies and nonsense of the world of academia.
1:42:35:
But one of the things that has changed: theory used to be the center of studies of atmospheric physics and so on. It was the way of taking a complicated system breaking it into components in a rational way and understanding them in an analytic fashion and so this was the heart of progress in meteorology from I would say 1914 through 1990. and it was always the hardest course that students took
1:43:18:
And now it's been completely supplanted by modeling which is much easier the students take someone else's model they run it and treat it as though it were data. And that absence of the theoretical structure in the field is really damaging. It meant there's no conceptual framework any longer other than the narrative that is presented that, you know, allows an Al Gore to show the cycles of ice ages as proof even though cause follows effect instead of the reverse! I mean one that is reduced to that level of misunderstanding and one of the things that is crucial I think for progress in the field is a return to developing Theory by Theory. I mean simply quantitatively isolating components of the system and using them to work out how it works. Because we can't integrate the full equations and so things like linearization or order of magnitude analysis played a major role hey right for your people who like to think about such things it's probably worth doing a little thought of why theory is disappeared from this subject.
Re Bitcoin ... I'm still waiting to being able to buy groceries or fuel with bitcoin.
Your guest is not talking. You should ask questions instead of giving opinions.
Is he smoking? If so, awesome
You'll be happy to learn that Lindzen is a crackpot in multiple fields. In addition to denying climate change, he also has defended the tobacco industry against claims that smoking causes cancer. Vet your industry PR shills carefully before you believe them.
I ❤ fossil fuels!
So does my SUV....
The interviewer talks a little too much
Should talk less, ask questions and listen more…
This guy is full of it, the Don Quijote of climate science.
Richard Lindzen - the Don Quotee of climate sciences.
Good, but you need to let your guest speak more, not to lecture him instead.
Incentives???? This guy has literally made millions acting as a “consultant” to oil and gas.
Proof? ………
I'd like to see your evidence
@5280ryan.. Indeed, easy to say, but with the passage of time & in the absence of proof, you do yourself no favours attempting to malign Prof Richard Lindzen whose scientific credentials are without blemish.
This talk went so far off the topic???