Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for lindzen

Comments matching the search lindzen:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Paul Pukite at 15:08 PM on 18 November, 2025

"but Lindzen seems to have botched this"

I can make the argument that Richard Lindzen set the discipline of atmospheric sciences down the wrong path for generations due to his failure to get the attribution correct on foundational climate behaviors. He claimed he was expert on atmospheric tides, having written a book called "Atmospheric Tides" in 1970. Yet, he missed pointing out that the enduring behavior of the equatorial stratosphere known as QBO was due to an obvious forcing attribution of interacting lunar and annual tides. In his research publications, Lindzen clearly stated that tidal forces had no effect on the QBO and other behaviors because he found that the math didn't agree. Unfortunately, his claim appeared so authoritarian to readers that no one ever followed up on his assertions and just assumed forcing was via some other resonant process.

Alas, this same missing tidal attribution has also been found to control mean sea-level variations over many decades in coastal sites, via similar careful cross-validation of models (starting in the Baltic, which has the most extensive record of MSL). This should not be surprising to find that tidal forces control what naively appears to be long-term tidal levels, yet the common explanation is non-tidal and unpredictable. This missed attribution is arguably also an artifact of Lindzen's original gaffe. Worse yet, the same tidal attribution can also be applied to the important climate behavior of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is best described as an erratic cycling of atmospheric pressure. Further, the same model can be tuned slightly to match the cycles of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). And to cap it off, the same common-mode tidal forcing can be used to cross-validate predictive models of ENSO in the Pacific.

The power of these tidal models are reinforced by advancements in the solution of non-linear fluid dynamics. Admittedly, I wouldn't have as strong a thesis because most people would ascribe it all to over-fitting of curves, similar to what can happen with neural-net models. Yet the rigor of extensive cross-validation on real FD models shows none of the artifacts of arbitrary over-fitting.

Given all that, and Lindzen's poor track record in anthropogenic attributions to climate change, I consider it past due to reappraise all of natural climate variation with these tidal factors in mind.

BTW, I essentially have one peer-reviewed publication on this topic, which was comprehensively covered in a 2019 Wiley/AGU volume (also presented at several AGU and EGU conferences prior to publication).

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Eclectic at 13:15 PM on 12 November, 2025

Bob Loblaw @8 :

Rogan for clickbait, to be sure. His ilk make a lot of dollars pandering to minorities. I dunno what their real thoughts are.

Lindzen & Happer ~ doubtless you are right. The pique of being passed over, and the desire to become a Big Fish again, no matter how small the pool. A confluence of many unworthy motives.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Bob Loblaw at 11:38 AM on 12 November, 2025

Well, if you look at the ages of Lindzen and Happer (85 and 86, respectively), it's clear that they grew up during the strong anti-communist era in the US, post-WWII. In the 1950s and 60s, a huge part of the population was seeing a commie under every bed. Better dead than red.

I can easily imagine that this would have influenced their views on life. I certainly preserve some of the attitudes and principles of my parents and my times growing up. (Lindzen and Happer's birth dates fall about half way between those of my parents and my own. Close to a 20 year gap either way.) As I grew into adulthood, I did not expect to have to fight the environmental fights of the 60s and 70s again fifty years later. I'm sure that some people think they are still fighting the commies like McCarthy did in the 1950s.

Some people just like to go against the flow. Take the contrarian position, because they'd rather be a big fish in a small pond - rather than a small fish in a big pond.

And today, it's often all about click bait. The desire to be popular, to be adored, as if we were all still in grade school.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Eclectic at 11:03 AM on 12 November, 2025

Nigelj @6 :

"Gubmint control and overreaching with regulations" is certainly the default outcry by American extreme rightwingers. To give them credit, that was a very reasonable position to take . . . 200 or 300 years ago. Though quite inappropriate in today's high-population hi-tech society.

[But I wander off-topic.]

And such outcries are too often a cover for mercenary self-interest. Possibly not much the case, with Lindzen and Happer ~ they are [IMO] more likely to have a mishmash of semi-subconscious motivations, like personal professional pique and a conservative's desire for clinging to the Good Old Days that they were familiar with. And suchlike.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

nigelj at 10:24 AM on 12 November, 2025

So we are left with Lindzens and Happers persistent errors or crazy opinions despite their qualifications. According to google gemini both are very suspicious of government regulations and over reach. I just think this is probably making them downplay the science. Impossible to prove of course. But I dont think its a coincidence that they have similar ideological leanings.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Eclectic at 08:39 AM on 12 November, 2025

You are right, gentlemen.

FLICC is a great concept, particularly when discussing clear-cut matters. Monckton is an excellent example of a clear-cut Fake Expert. The cases of Lindzen & Happer . . . get us deeper into murky semantics. Both are highly intelligent, but doing a crap job of thinking.

All this, motives aside ~ for we can speculate about their obvious & less obvious psychological "high crimes and misdemeanors" but most people are (properly) not much interested in that topic. After all, it is the outcome that matters, in practical politics.

In my mind, Lindzen started as an expert, and then progressively degraded his claim to that title, by his persistent and pig-headed errors (which he doubles-down on). And as you say, there is no point in publicly saying that he has no [current] claim to be regarded as a true expert ~ because the Denialists would aim to counter by getting out a tape measure and saying [re old academic qualifications] "His is bigger than yours" .

Best to simply show that Lindzen is wrong here and wrong there and wrong almost everywhere. And to bypass the "expertise", in his case.

Please, just the facts, madam.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Bob Loblaw at 05:35 AM on 12 November, 2025

I think the question "relevant qualifications" is critical.

For Lindzen, his educational background is physics (undergrad) and mathematics (grad). Both give an excellent background to lead into what I consider to be the primary focus of his academic career - meteorology. His early work, from what I know, seemed to focus on various aspects of atmospheric dynamics. Weather is strongly dependent on the discipline of geophysical fluid dynamics, due to the need to track short-term variations in atmospheric circulation.

You would think that this is also a good place to take "transferable skills" into climate science, but Lindzen seems to have botched this. In my experience, meteorologists that reject the science of climate change often do so on the basis of a couple of ingrained viewpoints.

The first is that knowledge of the highly variable short-term atmospheric motions related to weather seem to make them think that long-term prediction of "weather" is impossible, and they just see "climate" as "long-term weather".

The second is that short-term weather prediction does not require a particularly detailed understanding of radiation transfer. Other energy flows, yes, but not necessarily radiation transfer. Unfortunately, radiation transfer is an essential aspect of climate change (especially for greenhouse gas and aerosol effects). It's hard to get your head around how small changes in radiation transfer can have a big effect on climate, when so much is going on in atmospheric motions.

I don't know if Lindzen followed either of those paths, but he certainly has brought failed thinking into his climate-related work.

Happer is a somewhat different case. Again, he's a physicist. He worked on atomic physics, optics, and spectroscopy, and did work in atmospheric radiation transfer. Again, you'd expect this to be an excellent set of transferable skills to deal with climate, but no such luck. His Wikipedia page indicates that he was dismissed from his position with the US department of energy in 1993, due to his views on the ozone layer. This suggests a strong predilection to reject environmental issues - one that existed long before taking on the climate change fight.

So I would see both of these fellows as people that had good backgrounds and transferable skills that should have enabled them to move into climate science. But neither of them did it well. Lindzen has at least published in the climate literature, even if much of his work has not survived detailed examination. Happer just seems out of his depth.

Unreliable, poor quality "experts" for sure. How poor and unreliable you need to be to meet the "fake experts" category is probably subjective. Easy to call "fake" when someone has no evidence of transferable skills that would help them understand climate science. ("I'm a Nobel laureate!" is a pretty weak argument when your Nobel is for literature.) A lot harder to call "fake" when someone has a background that would suggest they have suitable transferable skills - but simply did a crap job transferring them.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

nigelj at 04:20 AM on 12 November, 2025

Eclectic, youre right Lindzen makes a lot of mistakes, but I dont see how that makes him a fake expert. Because the only logical definition of a fake expert is someone without relevant qualifications.The incessant false claims do however make him a very unreliable, poor quality expert. I dont see how we can stretch that to mean fake.

I'm probably being a bit pedantic and I get your point about semantics, but if we say Lindzen is a fake expert its so easy for the denialists to just list his impressive qualifications and the public will see that.

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

Eclectic at 07:05 AM on 11 November, 2025

Nigelj : Yes, but I will nitpick your nitpick.

Having made a number of posts recently on the other Rogan/ Lindzen/ Happer thread, I feel duty bound to comment on Lindzen particularly.

You make good points ~ but ~ a lot of it comes down to plain old semantics. While in some ways it's fair to label Lindzen as an expert rather than a fake expert . . . nevertheless there is the matter of Lindzen's appalling track record. He's not just been wrong on some things (yes, occasionally allowable for experts) but he's been consistently wrong for decades, and has refused to make correction ~ and he has persisted in misleading the public (for decades! ).

Does that in fact disqualify him as "expert"? Oh, fickle Semantics.

Does an academic, despite having advanced Doctorates in Mathematics, really qualify as a true expert if he persistently assures the public that 2+2=5 ??

Also sad, when Rogan obviously prefers "5" .

Five ways Joe Rogan misleads listeners about climate change

nigelj at 05:06 AM on 11 November, 2025

Very informative and accurate commentary, except I have one nit pick:

Commentary says: "Rogan’s fake experts. Rogan’s podcast tends to invite fringe, unqualified climate contrarians who dispute the expert consensus. Happer is a retired physicist with a scant publication record in the field of climate science. Lindzen has an extensive list of climate publications, but his contrarian claims have been consistently proven wrong. In other words, they have not withstood scientific scrutiny or the test of time."

This is wrong about Lindzen and conflates a whole lot of things. Lindzen cannot be classified as a fake expert. Lindzen is certainly a well qualified in climate science. His CV and publishing record shows this. The fact he has been proven wrong on various issues doesn't make him non qualified. Experts are sometimes proven wrong. The fact hes a contrarian doesn't make him a non expert or non qualified. Hes not a fringe scientist. IMHO Lindzen is a very bad choice to use as an example of a fake expert. However several of his reasonings fit the examples of cherry picking and logical fallacies etc,etc.

Happer is arguably a fake expert but not an ideal expample because at least he has a physics degree. Someone like Christopher Moncton would be much better example of a fake expert, because he is interviewed as if he's an expert, but he has no climate science related qualifications at all. He has a BArts degree in classical studies and a journalism diploma.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 23:49 PM on 9 November, 2025

Nick Palmer @22 :

Congratulations on surviving that 48-minute video, with all its waffle & minimization of the Global Warming trend. It was presented on a Denialist youtube channel . . . so it's possible that the video was edited down in places. And I hope you will agree that Lindzen is clearly batting for Team Denialist. (Whether his semi-subconscious motives had a partly religious component, or not.)

You may recall that (decades ago) Lindzen's model projection was for global temperatures to plateau early in this century. His prediction was an embarrassing failure, compared with the actual rising temperatures (as projected by Hansen and the mainstream climate scientists of the time). And judging from the Lindzen video we have watched, he has fought a rear-guard battle to minimize his total failure. He has simply doubled-down, to a very large extent.

Lindzen, more than once, gives a nod to a narrowly-controlled climate-resilient design of Earth ~ when, as an academic, he really should know the the ancient paleo climate variations of our planet. #Looking at the overall context, he is IMO engaging in Doublethink about Global Warming. Motivated Reasoning is very evident.

"Cornwall" or not, it is (to me) rather surprising that Lindzen would take such a 'religious-adjacent' view, for he is not a Christian Fundamentalist nor Christian at all. Sadly, I know little of the pre-Christian Old-Testament tenets of the Creation (dated 6029 years ago, per Bishop Ussher).

Whether Lindzen's [half-baked?] climate denialism has underlying motives which are 50% religion-based or only 10% religion-based . . .is something which Lindzen perhaps does not know (or acknowledge?) ~ nor does it matter much in the greater sheme of things. We need not get exercised about it. It is enough to see that explicitly and implicitly, he is showing he has abandoned the scientific mainstream.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Nick Palmer at 20:23 PM on 9 November, 2025

Well, I subjected myself to the video Eclectic refers to - a 48 minute conversation with Lindzen. IMHO, at no point does Lindzen imply that he believes that God/Yahweh is looking after us. Lindzen does refer to "design" a couple of times, largely, I think to manipulate the audience of this YouTube channel. I think he is using the same idea as sceptic engineers do, who are convinced that feedbacks must be in Earth's systems to maintain stability. This is similar to the 'Uniformitarianism' principle that sceptic geologists invoke.

Near the end Lindzen actually pours scorn on the other wing of 'Evangelicals', who think our activities are an assault on God's creation.
It's clear to me that spreading stories that Lindzen is motivated by a deep religious conviction are as wrong as the denialist assertion that climate scientists are all making it up to keep the jobs and grants gravy train rolling along.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 04:39 AM on 9 November, 2025

Nigelj @19 :

Hallucinations aside, the AI tools are certainly impressive in their speed & wide-ranging searches.

AFAIK, they have not yet gained much ability to infer. And when we are needing to scout the public utterances & texts (especially of particularly public figures e.g. politicians and propagandists) then we run up against the problem of "dog-whistling" and nuanced/coded language and subtle cloaking of meaning & intent. And outright camouflage.

Rogan, Lindzen and Happer are easy to see through, at least at the level of their public actions.

At this stage, I still think we must make use of the experience and wisdom of the well-informed human mind. A dash of cynicism also helps [recent comments of Philippe Chantreau come to mind! ].

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

nigelj at 04:12 AM on 9 November, 2025

Clarification: If you asked an AI tool to investigate all possible motives for Richard Lindzens denialism including psychological motives, and listed them the AI would probably trawl the internet looking for commentary that mentions such things, or evidence that might suggest such things, and have a go at making sense of it.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

nigelj at 04:01 AM on 9 November, 2025

Eclectic @ 17, said: "I suspect that the AI tools are only capable of going looking for evidence of partisan political affiliation, rather than for the "subconscious" evidence that a person is guided by the deeper (and often unworthy) motives that rule so much of the non-partisan aspect of politics. Power / money / psychological resentments."

I'm not so sure. If you asked an AI tool to investigate all possible motives for denialism including psychological motives, and listed them the AI would probably trawl the internet looking for commentary that mentions such things, or evidence that might suggest such things, and have a go at making sense of it.

What I've found is the performance of AI depends on asking very clear and precise questions and providing some explanatory background and even listing your own suspicions. And defining your terms carefully. This leads to more useful answers than just putting in a 5 word search, "Lindzen, motives for climate denialism." You have to help the AI.

The problem is the AI then tends to tell you what it thinks you want to hear. Accuracy can suffer. But at the very least you get a good list of relevant articles with links.

The AI has limits of course. I've found accuracy is variable but its good enough to be useful for simple issues, and the AI is so fast and that makes it useful. But I digress and I may have misinterpreted what you are getting at.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 07:52 AM on 8 November, 2025

Quite correct, Nigelj @16. I suspect that the AI tools are only capable of going looking for evidence of partisan political affiliation, rather than for the "subconscious" evidence that a person is guided by the deeper (and often unworthy) motives that rule so much of the non-partisan aspect of politics. Power / money / psychological resentments.

Sad that Lindzen & the handful of eminent "denialist" scientists have abandoned logical scientific thought. To quote my favorite politician : "Sad. Sad like has never seen before."

[Except that we have seen it before.]

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

nigelj at 05:04 AM on 8 November, 2025

I asked some of the usual AI tools what are Richard Lindzens political beliefs. The responses were lengthy and listed references but here are some key quotes fyi:

Google Gemini: Richard Lindzen was a lifelong Democrat who switched to the Republican Party due to his views on climate change and government policy responses. He describes his political beliefs as generally conservative or libertarian, especially regarding what he sees as government overreach in the name of climate action.

Microsoft Copilot: While Lindzen doesn’t publicly identify with a specific political party, his affiliations and rhetoric suggest a strong ideological alignment with libertarian and conservative critiques of environmental regulation.

So he may be minimising the climate problem as a way to avoid government involvement in solutions. He may not even realise hes doing this.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Paul Pukite at 02:13 AM on 8 November, 2025

Becoming clear that Richar Lindzen is vastly overrated as a scientist. Even his earliest research from back in the 1960's needs to be revisited. Some foundational mechanisms were dismissed or overlooked by Lindzen, and for the longest time his arguments were never revisited. I started reviewing his early models on the QBO several years ago and found surprising connections that he missed. Alas, Lindzen is no longer in the picture as he is no longer active as a researcher, but his disciples can take the helm if they wish to defend him They seem mum about the new findings as PubPeer reappraisals are being ignored

https://pubpeer.com/publications/E27F0929E64D90C32E9358889CC80F

PubPeer is the place for futther discussion, not the comment section here, IMO. This won't make a dent when it comes to arguing for a change

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 21:58 PM on 7 November, 2025

Nick Palmer :

A lengthy PART TWO of the religious component of Lindzen's climate science denialism.

While we see where the typical Denialist (e.g. to be found in the street or @WUWT website) harbors anger / selfishness / deficiency in empathy . . . . there is IMO an additional fundamentalist religious component in the Motivated Reasonings of some prominent Denialists. You yourself could name a few of those luminaries, I am sure.

IIRC, there was an interview with a very relaxed, laid-back Lindzen sitting in a chair in his garden, while being interviewed by a "sympathetic" interviewer. My perhaps-faulty memory was that the occasion was 2006 ~ but perhaps that date is wrong. My googling this week turned up youtube: "Interview with Professor Richard Lindzen" on the "Rathnakumar S" channel. I am unclear on its date ~ maybe 2014 or 2015. Hard to be sure, since youtubers tend to recycle and re-post stuff from years earlier from other sources. But the exact date is a trivial matter. And please do not bother to view the video, unless you are in a masochistic mood.

# The "Rathnakumar S" channel is new to me, and I have not viewed any of the rest of the playlist. But the playlist does include interviews (originals or re-posts?) of people such as :- W.Soon; W.Happer; H.Svensmark; M.Salby; P.Michaels; S.Baliunas; Bob Carter; et alia. And including that paragon of ethical public education, Marc Morano. Plus there appears to be a flirtation with anti-vax. Of course.

Video with approximate time-stamps :

Lindzen seems to favor a degree of Intelligent Design ~ the World is well-designed. 3:05 "Oh I think the case is pretty strong that it is in fact better designed, and there are strong negative feedbacks that will instead of amplifying, diminish the effect of man's emissions."

Lindzen keeps minimizing the Global Warming: "Only half a degree in a century ... [and] the temperature is always flopping around."

Lindzen opines that CO2 can have a warming effect, but most of it is not due to humans . . . though yes, water vapor and clouds "worsen what we do with CO2." [Note that Lindzen's "Iris Hypothesis" has been a dud.]

22:20 "We still don't know why we had these ice age cycles. We don't know why 50 million years ago we could have alligators in Spitzbergen."

27:00 "Ever since we invented the umbrella, we've known how to deal with climate, up to a point."

37:20 "Nothing in this [climate] field is terribly compelling. The data is weak. ..."CO2 will contribute some warming : not much. ..."It is then claimed that recent changes are due to man : I don't think that's true."

46:13 He returns to Intelligent Design : "A well-engineered device tries to compensate for anything that perturbs it."

So ~ not much particularly explicit denialisty statements . . . but a great deal of implicit statements. Including, throughout the video, a great deal of "Cornwall" wording.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 18:43 PM on 7 November, 2025

Nick Palmer @11 :

Aha ~ I am disappointed that the AI [Artificial Intelligence] detected my comment of 8 January 2025. Here I was, thinking that I was flying under the radar, by my [unspecified cloaking] of my public comments.

More seriously, you could perhaps try Lindzen+God / Lindzen+Jehovah / Lindzen+Elohim / etcetera. Bur why waste yhour time on such a project? AI's are improving by the month : but while they are great on specific words, they are not yet ( I gather) much chop at inference, induction, and the "reading-between-the-lines" of meaning & context.

Just as I find it tiresome to read the vague fuzziness & "plausible deniability" style of Judith Curry's climate commentary/opinions ~ so too I avoid following Richard Lindzen closely during his lengthy almost-but-not-quite denial of the mainstream science over the years. Lindzen does not wear his heart on his sleeve . . . so we must look for his implicit position.

Nor had I looked into the "Cornwall Alliance" and its "evangelical statements" [~ thanks BL]. Since Lindzen is non-Christian (of evangelical or any other type) then I am a tad surprised that he would sign onto anything from the Cornwall Alliance. However, Wikipedia says the Cornwall Declaration goes: "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."

Well, you get the picture. And thinking back on the youtube interview (that I touched on earlier) I can see that he was using many of the words/phrases expressed by the Cornwallites.

So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a real denialist ~ with an added teaspoon of That Old Time Religion.

Nick, already my post is too long : so I shall coffee up and get back to your inquiry, soon.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Nick Palmer at 14:58 PM on 7 November, 2025

Ok, I grant that Lindzen signed the documents, but that's a far cry from meaning he supports every word in them. The actual 'God loves us and wouldn't let us' bit is the CA's 'reasoning' for why they believe mainstream climate science is wrong.ost of it is about how environmental stewardship should be for the benefit of human flourishing etc. The only direct quotes AI could find relating to Lindzen and Yahweh was from me questioning it and Eclectic themselves saying it here several months back "Eclectic at 07:43 AM on 8 January, 2025".

Most AI points out that Lindzen does not use religious arguments to make his case about low climate sensitivity

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 13:10 PM on 7 November, 2025

Three matters :-

(a) One Planet and Nigelj ~ you make many excellent points.

(b) Thank you Moderator [Bob]. I hope that a careful reading of my words @5 does show that I am not accusing these elderly scientists of deceit ~ but simply that they are persistently wrong and should know better. I am sure that they have high intelligence (well above mine) and that a few (e.g. Lindzen) have a high level of climate science knowledge . . . even though their own comments all too often suggest otherwise.

At a functional level, the human brain is rather like a stack of pancakes. The top pancake, exposed to the world (and generally being the "self-aware" pancake) can be strongly influenced and/or controlled by some of the deeper pancakes. [Freud used an over-simplistic concept of superego/ ego/ id. ]

However, just as a highly-skilled driver can sometimes crash his car, or as a poker-player can sometimes botch the good hand he has been dealt . . . . so too can eminent scientists sometimes present garbage to the world. And keep presenting it for decades ~ and the longer they do it, the less likely they are to admit they are wrong. Human nature. They are not intending deceit, at least not at their surface pancake level. (Versus those paid propagandists at Heartland Institute, etc. )

Regarding Lindzen's expressed belief that God/Jehovah/Yahweh would of course design an Earth which narrowly controlled its climate for the benefit of the human race ~ it might take me a while to find the exact reference. A quick search shows me a youtuber interviewing a relaxed Richard Lindzen sitting on a chair in his garden (which rings a bell in my memory) but the date was stated as 2014 (or 2015) . . . but I am not clear whether that's the release date or the interview date.

My initial impression is that the video is 48 minutes of Judith-Curry-like vagueness & minimisation. But I will make a separate post once I have digested it.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

One Planet Only Forever at 07:20 AM on 7 November, 2025

Nick Palmer @7,

Regarding Lindzen's 'alternative understanding of the impact of cloud changes as warming occurs due to increased CO2 levels'.

I may be mistaken. But nearly 1.5 C warming has happened with CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 420 ppm (only a 50% increase of CO2). I appreciate that correlation does not prove causation. But that information would appear to fairly solidly establish that Lindzen's past belief, that he appears to powerfully resist changing his mind about in spite of updated information, has 'very little merit'.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

One Planet Only Forever at 07:03 AM on 7 November, 2025

Because of Lindzen's past history of contributions to climate science, I find it very difficult to grant him any benefit-of-doubt regarding his statement in the first point raised (repeated below):

Lindzen @ 6:02: “global mean temperature doesn't change much, but you know you focus on one degree, a half degree, so it looks like something”

Lindzen @ 22:06: “Gutierrez (sic) at the UN says the next half degree and we're done for. I mean, doesn't anyone ask, a half degree? I mean, I deal with that between, you know, 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m [laughs]. Rogan: "it does seem crazy. It's just that kind of fear of minute change that they try to put into people.”

To start, Lindzen seriously misrepresents what Gutierres has said. A quick internet search finds the following UN News item: There is an exit off ‘the highway to climate hell’, Guterres insists. It includes the following selected quotes:

“It’s climate crunch time” when it comes to tackling rising carbon emissions, the UN Secretary-General said on Wednesday, stressing that while the need for global action is unprecedented, so too are the opportunities for prosperity and sustainable development.

...

Question of degrees

He said a half degree difference in global warming could mean some island States or coastal communities disappearing forever.

Scientists point out that the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse and cause catastrophic sea level rise. Whole coral reef systems could disappear along with 300 million livelihoods if the 1.5℃ goal is not met.

Extreme weather from East Asia to the western seaboard of the US has been turbocharged by climate chaos, “destroying lives, pummelling economies and hammering health”, said the Secretary-General.

It is very challenging to excuse someone like Lindzen saying those types of things (and all the other cases of misleading manipulative messaging by him and Happer that have been pointed out).

Rogan can be excused for being a gullible desperate pursuer of popularity who is easily impressed and therefore potentially is unwittingly massively harmfully misleading. No such excuse comes to mind for Lindzen (or Happer).

I look forward to the follow-up mentioned by Dana that will "...look at the underlying psychology in a separate article in the near future."

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Nick Palmer at 06:49 AM on 7 November, 2025

Does anyone have a reference for the claim that Lindzen has used the 'God wouldn't let us wreck our climate' argument. I knew both John Christie and Roy Spencer have very strong religious beliefs which makes them kind of believe that God wouldn't let us do it, which colours their views, but I've never heard anything similar about Lindzen.

In any event, I think it's unfair to characterise Lindzen as a denialist because his basic position is that he "accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming."

This is his hypothesised 'Iris effect'. This is why he believes that climate sensitivity is about 1/3 that of the figures 'IPPC science' works with. If he's right, then global warming genuinely will not be a problem. He often phrases his rhetoric to assert that 'science shows' that the sensitivity is a lot less than the IPCC's, but he's usually referring to his own papers and sort of implies that science generally supports him - but it's just his own views about clouds in the tropics.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

nigelj at 04:23 AM on 7 November, 2025

KR said: " I wonder, at this point, whether the reward for such denial is financial (I don't think either has published much recently), ideological (against government control/pro libertarian), or just consistency with past assertions?"

The denialism may be a mixture of all three motinations. Humans often have multiple motivations for a particular action or view. This is a basic finding of psychology.

We humans are reductionist we prefer a simple singular explanation. Occams Razor being the formalisation of this broadly saying that the simplest explanation for an event that can explain all the facts is usually correct. But with human behaviour the simplest explanation that works is sometimes a not so simple.

And I think you can add more motivations for climate science denialism. Religious beliefs and extreme attention seeking. And unusual stubborness. Some people have a big narcissistic ego so it becomes difficult and downright painful to admit they are wrong or made a mistake so people hold onto absurd beliefs their whole lives. Of course we are all egotistical but most of us are capable of admitting we made a mistake. People at the extreme end of the ego spectrum have a huge problem walking back from their views. They are unusually stubborn.

And some people are super smart and over confident so they believe they just cannot be wrong. But everyone is fallible

Of course its hard to know precisely what motivates Lindzen but the evidence suggests it may be some sort of combination of money and religion and I reckon over confidence and attention seeking.

When reading denialists comments and getting in discussions with them a large number do seem to have very strong libertarian leaning anti government regulation ideologies, so denying the science is an obvious strategy to prevent governments control. Nick Palmer is right.

I dont like accusing people of lying. Its hard to know if they are lying because lying means deliberately spreading falsehoods that they know are falsehoods. Sometimes they are just mistaken. Genuine lying does happen of course and can sometimes be proven, but in scientific issues its tricky to prove because scientifc findings have error bars and theories are not the same as facts. So someone like Lindzen may really believe his numbers are the truth. I think hes more in the delusional category. Hes certainly spreading "miss"information.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

Eclectic at 22:29 PM on 6 November, 2025

Plincoln @4 :

Lindzen may be the exception, indeed. IIRC, roughly 19 years ago [aged 65?] he gave an interview where seemingly his fundamental denialism was on the religious basis that Yahweh would prevent the Earth's climate deviating from the Eden-like state. Doubtless Lindzen's viewpoint would also be reinforced by the usual political and/or motivated reasonings of the true Denialist.

Yes, Lindzen had received some small payments/stipends from the usual industry suspects. Interestingly, the psychologists say that small payments of cash or other benefits, can have a remarkably strong effect on the mindset of recipients.

Happer and the other elderly Denialists ~ in which I include the youthful [mid-70's] Koonin ~ seem to have the more typical mishmash of ego/Emeritus-Syndrome/wingnut/etcetera distortions of logic as well as a deficiency in Charity.

But I guess we should update the traditional virtue of Charity, to be re-named as Empathy.

Debunking Joe Rogan, Dick Lindzen, and Will Happer

plincoln24 at 21:33 PM on 6 November, 2025

I was not aware of these interviews where Happer and Lindzen are straight up lying to the public. They are lying about the most elementary facts that any climate scientist should have under control. This is extremely frustrating. To my knowledge Mr. Lindzen is supposed to be a climate scientist, but I am not sure about Happer. I have to wonder if they are being paid for their dishonesty.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

MA Rodger at 20:41 PM on 17 January, 2025

sychodefender @18,

It is incorrect to group the work of Lindzen with that of Kubickiet al, Van Wijngaarden & Happer and that of Schildknect. Lindzen does not dispute the calculated forcing resulting from increasing CO2. His argument is that the resulting feedbacks counteracts the effect of such forcings rather that amplifying them. Dispite may attempts, Lindzen has yet to provide a satisfactory basis for his claim.

The others you list are sinilar in that their basic thesis ignores the IR emissions from the atmospheric gases like CO2 which are generated through the kinetic molecular actions (and thus are dependent on temperature). Such IR comprises the vast majority of IR absotption/emmision within the atmosphere and is readily shown through measurement. Instead, the likes of Kubickiet al, Van Wijngaarden & Happer and Schildknect examine solely the IR directly resulting from surface-emitted IR. Because of such childish error, their work is deemed nonsensical and igmored or, as is the case with Kubicki et al (2024), retracted.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

sychodefender at 09:59 AM on 17 January, 2025

The Kubicki paper seems much the same as those from Happer, Van Wijngaarden, Lindzen, Schildknect and others who all centre their conclusions around the ability of co2 above 300ppm to absorb infrared radiation only at a diminishing logarithmic rate, not comlete but near saturation. I assume the IPCC models include this information as it was mentioned on their website about 20 years ago so they are aware.

I'm guessing that there has been some more recent finding or mechanism by which co2 is declared culpable of creating warming, could someone bring me up to speed please?

Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial

Eclectic at 07:43 AM on 8 January, 2025

Neutral 1966 @36 :-

In addition, your question is far too vague.

Also, who are the "you" in "you blacklist academics" ?

And who are these academics? ~ be specific, please. Were you being a Conspiracy Theorist who hand-waves at vast crowds of scientists cowering in the shadows, afraid to speak out because fearing ridicule or near-crucifixion?

My own impression ~ over many years ~ is that there's merely a handful or two of "climate-contrarian" scientists. And some of them have very non-scientific reasons for gainsaying the scientific consensus. Examples : Professor Lindzen who believes that Jehovah will ensure that Earth climate must remain near optimum. And Dr Spencer has rather similar Fundamentalist ideas (but surely you yourself acknowledge that there was a climate and an Earth before 6,000 years ago? ).

In addition, there are a few very elderly scientists (eminent in their own fields, but usually far from expert in the climate field) who speak out against the consensus. But they fail to provide evidence to back up their opinions. They seem to be motivated by an expansive lime-light-seeking ego plus somewhat extremist political views. A toxic combination, particularly when combined with that subtle intellectual deterioration which happens so often in the elderly [ present company excepted, of course! ].

Neutral 1966 , you really need to explain yourself ~ and not get confused between [A] the climate science, which is straightforward (but opposed by crackpots, who can't provide evidence) . . . and [B] the controversial and difficult politics of how best to tackle the ongoing climate-change problem.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Eclectic at 08:24 AM on 26 October, 2023

Speaking of delusions ~ about 17-ish years ago, there was video interview with Prof. Lindzen (Emeritus) , where Lindzen asserted that the world could not / would not get warmer, because Divine action protects this planet from such an excursion.

Has Lindzen changed views since then? Or his "reasoning" ?

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Eclectic at 09:34 AM on 27 September, 2023

Wbru49 @20 :

What were the points you wish to make about the Happer/Lindzen letter addressed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ~ were there any important legal or scientific aspects which are worth noting?

Based on my quick scan of it : the letter seems to be a general outpouring of all sorts of old "denialist" talking points. Not sure whether it's best described as a rant or as a "Drumpfized" Gish Gallop of nonsenses & half-truths.

Either way, it is sad to see two elderly scientists showing that peculiar degeneration of intellect which too-often accompanies "Emeritus" status. Or would be sad ~ if it weren't already Old News.

Or perhaps I have misunderstood what these two guys are up to. Are they laying the ground for an actual legal challenge to the EPA . . . or are they just venting?

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

wbru49 at 06:51 AM on 27 September, 2023

Are there thoughts about this July 19, 2023 letter from William Happer
Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University and Richard Lindzen
Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

There is no consensus

RicardoB at 23:13 PM on 10 September, 2023

Eclectic @951:

Thank you for you comments.

You stated: "Dr Jordan Peterson shows how little he knows about climate matters ~ fair enough ~ but why is he choosing to boost Dr Curry?"

He chooses to boost Curry as he chooses to boost many other prominent "climate narrative contrarians" that he "interviews" in that same channel, like Robert Bryce, Steven Koonin, Richard Lindzen and Alex Epstein.

Dr. Peterson main point of view on the "climate debate" seems to come from his strong belief (?!) that the political measures that are being enforced by governments (to tackle global warming) will lead to mass impoverishment and starvation via the rise of the energy bill. In his words: "People can't care about environmental concerns when they are so desperate they are worried about tonight's shelter and the next meal." He frequently rages about "the consensus" and the "hysteria" that are leading to these political choices.

Hence, he deliberately chooses to debate the topic only with "specialists" from the "contrarian side" - champions for the carbon industry agenda. It suffices to say that these interviews function not as debates or means to get to the truth (by now, Dr. Peterson seems mostly uninterested in the cientific truth), but as opportunities both to let these "specialists" voice their cherry-picked concerns and attack established comprehensive scientific bases, and to not get himself confronted/debunked on his opinions. There's no debating; there's only agreeing.

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 17:56 PM on 15 August, 2023

Rkrolph @948 , as far as I have seen, Dr Curry has not changed her expressed views in recent years (she has retired academically, but AFAIK still maintains a commercial interest in weather/hurricane season predictions). # I follow her blog most days ~ the blog is slightly redeemed by one or two of the commenters there. The blog is a somewhat more genteel version of WUWT blog.

Unlike Drs Spencer & Christie, and the definitely-emeritus Prof Lindzen, the good Dr Curry maintains a certain amount of vagueness in her speech and presentations . . . implying that she is not quite opposed to the mainstream climate science. Vagueness & a degree of "uncertainty" are her game ~ enough fuzziness for some Plausible Deniability, when someone tries to pin her down now or at a future date. But it is as obvious as an elephant in your kitchen, about which side of the scientific fence she occupies. And this goes down well with the usual group of denialist U.S. senators.

** Up to as much as two-thirds of modern rapid global warming might possibly be owing to "natural variations" or ocean/atmosphere cycles . . . that's the sort of Plausible Deniability she goes for. So no need to take any climate action.

Mr John Stossel is a reporter that has gone over to the Dark Side, years ago. Basically a propagandist. I haven't followed him closely enough to allow me to make a psychiatric assessment.

How to inoculate yourself against misinformation

Teakay at 17:19 PM on 16 May, 2023

Petra Liverani I find it interesting why people such as yourself claim to be more open when in reality you are the least open as your stand point just dismisses volumes of scientific evidence that doesn't fit your own beliefs & feeling. Contrarian thinking can have a value in science to stress standing hypothesis & create alternative hypothesis. However alot of alternative hypothesis continue to be kicked around well after their sell-by date as the evidence against them grows. We see this in climate science with the likes Lindzen. His climate predictions were proved wrong. He could of conceded, but instead doubled fown and went into the 'it's a conspiracy against me'. The evidence against Terrain theory is so high their are branches of science dedicated to virology that you have dismiss over a 100years of scientific evidence. The pieces of Terrain theory that had merit where long included into health care such as the role environment & personal health that's how science works it incorporates things which can ve evidenced as having an effect. The ideas pushed by the likes of Sam Bailey have long been dismissed to the point she is reverting to scientific knowledge of the 1800's when trying to apply Koch's postulates. Again this mirrors climate science where past talking points are continually rehashed though the scientific evidence had dismissed them long ago. The poor logic deployed to dismiss any evidence against a biased position is astonishing - the vast organisation, cost, number of people invloved etc that would be required gor these conspiracy theory's to be real is laughable when membersof governments can't even keep their affairs secret.

Climate Science Denial Explained

Eclectic at 23:02 PM on 20 March, 2023

MA Rodger @21 ,

Yes, as I was addressing Foster @11 and @17 , it seemed reasonable to throw in mention of those two scientists who are "icons" of the science-denier crowd at WUWT .

As you know full well, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are almost the only climate scientists having enough genuine track record in the field, as to qualify for worshipful attitude from the denialists. (In their desperation to find a respectable scientist who is "on our side" . . . the denialists are reduced to a choice of slim-to-none , compared with the many hundreds of mainstream climate scientists ~ or many thousands, depending on how defined.)

Dr Spencer's tendency is ( I gather secondhand from a Potholer54 video ) to take a religious fundamentalist viewpoint ~ to the effect that "all will be well with the Earth, thanks to divine protection". And Potholer54 relates how - over many years - Spencer has had to repeatedly backpedal from his climate assertions, as the contrary evidence keeps proving him wrong. Even so, at times Spencer gets a bit of flak from denizens at WUWT , because he is not quite politically-correct enough to deny Greenhouse Effect etc.

Both Lindzen and Spencer demonstrate how some well-informed & intelligent men can get it so very wrong, owing to a pigheaded "motivated reasoning" directed by the emotional part of their brain.

Climate Science Denial Explained

Eclectic at 19:59 PM on 20 March, 2023

MA Rodger @19 ,

there is much in what you say. And sadly, the Iris Effect was a flop. And Prof Lindzen's earlier predictions of only a very slight rise in surface temperature have been (in retrospect) a giant flop too.

I base my "religious" comment on seeing a lengthy video interview of Lindzen (dated around 2006, IIRC ). The interviewer was very simpatico ~ and Lindzen did not hold back.

Has my subsequent opinion of Lindzen been influenced by a confirmation-bias about his later public speakings ? . . . well, quite possibly so (but I do try to make allowance). A mountain of motivated reasoning on Lindzen's part still seems evident to me. As you yourself say, there is no logical basis for the denialist viewpoint.

Climate Science Denial Explained

MA Rodger at 18:20 PM on 20 March, 2023

eclectic @18,

I don't see Lindzen's opposition to the science as being motivated by religion. I see it as a scientist of some repute who lost the conclusive scientific debate over AGW in the 1980s but refused to admit defeat. While such stubbornness is not to be condemed (skepticism being a big part of the scientific process), Lindzen 'crosses the line' and sets out unscientific messages. I still remember his rather ludicrous contribution to the 1990 film 'The Greenhouse Conspiracy' (YouTube) which actually convinced me of the opposite view that AGW was real and likely a big problem being politically kicked into the long grass. (The 'crossing of the line' into non-science is not a wholly climate denier thing but they do seem to spend much more time doing it.)

Through the years, Lindzen did (indeed still does - see Lindzen & Choi 2022) continue work attempting to show that climate sensitivity is low and AGW not a problem for humanity, most famously his 'Iris Effect' which turns out to be a real effect but one having the opposite impact and one threatening significant increased warming.

Climate Science Denial Explained

Eclectic at 11:30 AM on 20 March, 2023

Foster @17 ,

I hope you found some amusement reading the Anthony Watts article. And reading maybe a few of its attached comments [best to look for ones with a high number of red-color "down votes"]. WUWT currently shows that article as having over 650 comments . . . a Platinum Medal score for a WUWT article, and demonstrating that it is doing well as a Hot Button issue for climate-denialists. Whew !

If you read the comments, you will see a lot of sniping & griping, but very little science at all.

As MA Rodger has touched on, you find prominent denialists such as Dr Lindzen and Dr Spencer who are driven by "motivated reasoning" derived from their emotional religious beliefs that the Divine Entity simply would not permit Earth's climate to depart from the comfortable Garden-of-Eden range.

However, most WUWT regular denialists fall into 3 groups :- the conspiritard/wingnut group ; the science crackpot group ; and the intelligent well-informed ones who neverthelesshave been captured by their own motivated reasoning (a sort of palace coup where emotions displace intellect). But obviously there is some overlap between groups ~ mostly the 1st and 3rd groups.

Foster , I would if I had my druthers, simply leave WUWT & similar sites to fester as they are. Yes, there is an argument that such disinformation sites ought to be "stopped". Undoubtably they deserve that fate. However, they may do more good than harm, by localizing denialists into their own echo chamber where they can blow off some steam . . . and it keeps them off the streets, so to speak.

Climate Science Denial Explained

MA Rodger at 18:20 PM on 14 March, 2023

Foster @11,

The crux of this latest nonsense from our chum Anthony Willard Watts is to plot out global average temperature using a very long Y-axis so it appears as a flat line.

Wattsupian poster

This is rather reminiscent of the 'thin red line' of aging climate-change-denying climatologist Dickie Lindzen who would plot the size of AGW-to-date onto a graph of annual max-min temperatures in Boston (where he worked) using the width of a red line.

Lindzen's thin red line

Lindzen would then make some nonsense statement about the planet's average temperature always wobbling by several tenths of a degree at virtually all timescales (which isn't correct). At a presentation in the UK Houses of Parliament back in 2012, he candidly put it thus:-

Changes in the order of several tenths of a degree are always present at virtually all time scales. And obsessing on the details of this record is more akin to a spectator sport for tea-leaf reading than a serious contributor to scientific efforts.
Say, at least so far: if some day I should see some changes of twenty-times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable but nothing so far looks that way.

So this so-called climatologist suggests a global temperature change of twenty-times 'what he's seen so far' is when climate change becomes "remarkable". Call that 20 x 1.5ºF=+30ºF=+16ºC. I think the word "uninhabitable" would have been a more appropriate adjective.

CO2 effect is saturated

MA Rodger at 19:58 PM on 1 November, 2022

The commenter currently shown @667 and naming themself 'Spooker' claims to have been awarded a PhD in Physics and asks whether it should have occurred to others that perhaps 'Spooker' "already know(s) the basic science behind the GHE."

It is not unknown for those who are very well versed in Physics to be for some reason incapable of grasping the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect and deny it exists. William Happer was such a one (I think recently he has been used as a co-author in work that does present the existence of AGW but of a much diminished form, a la the likes of Dickie Lindzen), although he does have the excuse of being very old and, as the adage goes, 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks'.

What I would ask this commenter presently calling themself Spooker, and ask in a sciency-physics sort of way, if all the IR emitted by the planet surface is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere above within metres of the surface (which for the central specrtum of the CO2 emissions spectrum at ~666cm^-1 is true) and thus cannot impact the planetary energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, where does all the other IR come from? For instance, what is the source of all the downwelling IR that can be seen by instruments on the surface.

The graphic demonstrating such measurement below was sourced from here.

Science: What it is, how it works, and why it matters

Eclectic at 17:39 PM on 1 September, 2022

Rosross @4 :

You are certainly correct - to some extent. ( I agree with "OPOF" on that. )

OPOF makes good points on the unhappy level of corruption/marketization of modern science. It is something which a cynic would regard as difficult to avoid in this modern commercial world.

# Nevertheless, Rosross, the modern science system is like modern democracy ~ far from perfect, yet better than any alternative so far tried. If you have a more perfect (and practical !) system in mind, then it would be most interesting to read your description of it. (Doubtless you know the old joke about the overly-critical voyeur.)

Cowpuncher @8 ~ sorry, but your vanWijngaarden publications link shows as "highly insecure" and my computer won't proceed. If you have some excellently salient points (from Wijngaarden & colleagues) then please summarize those points.

Happer and vanW have received some earlier attention here at SkS ~ and as far as I recall, they were not making any notable advance in climate science. Basically, theirs was a re-hash of already-understood material . . . plus a large dob of bizarre motivated reasoning (but not as extreme as Lindzen's stuff). ~Motivated reasoning strongly influenced by political extremism, I mean. In other words, very poor science.

Infrared Iris will reduce global warming

MA Rodger at 22:22 PM on 9 August, 2022

I don't have a problem accessing Lindzen & Choi (2022) 'The Iris Effect: A Review'. The problems with any post-2011 up-date start when you do access Lindzen & Choi (2022). The vast majority of the 5,000-plus word account is re-fighting lost battles of the past, battles that actually pre-date the SkS OP above. In essence, all Lindzen & Choi are saying is that climatology has yet to nail down cloud feedbacks so don't forget the Iris Effect, although they give little enough reason for such remembering. And while Lindzen attempts to relive the past, the work on clouds continues along as it always did, including tropical ocean cloud with recently for instance Ito & Masunaga (2022) 'Process level assessment of the iris effect over tropical oceans' stating their "results show that a theory focusing on the air temperature structure around anvil clouds is likely at work in the tropical atmosphere, although the anvil's warming and cooling effects would offset each other during the whole day and night."

Infrared Iris will reduce global warming

Eclectic at 14:34 PM on 9 August, 2022

Whdaffer , my first attempt failed to access the Lindzen article.

Overall, it would be helpful if you gave a brief summary of any noteworthy points in that article.

Prof. Lindzen has had a rather disappointing track record since his academic retirement ~ so it would be interesting to see if he has come up with something really new & valuable. Over to you !

Infrared Iris will reduce global warming

whdaffer at 10:52 AM on 9 August, 2022

The last update to this article was 2011.

Lindzen has a review article out (link below) that discusses work that's happened since. I was wondering if there were plans to update this article in light of the work since 2011.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022APJAS..58..159L/abstract

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 18:41 PM on 6 August, 2022

OldHickory @648 : thank you for expanding on the matter ~ but there is still a major shortfall in your comment. Not only miscommunication - which may partly be a verbal/semantic problem - but it appears even more certain that you have not grasped the essence of how "greenhouse" warms the lower atmosphere.

Once you have truly grasped how H2O , CO2 , etcetera operate in the atmosphere, you will see why all the climate scientists (including the famous contrarian Professor Lindzen) are in agreement on the actual mechanism of planetary "greenhouse". It seems you have confused yourself about the question of "near the surface of the earth ... is highly saturated". [your quote]

As I mentioned earlier, the "saturation" question is not really relevant. It is not the "saturation" which is important, but the concentration (as in greenhouse gas molecules per cubic millimeter . . . or cubic meter . . . or what-have-you ). Any level of concentration will produce some greenhouse, and as you increase the concentration, there comes an increase in warming effect. The effective increase is not exactly logarithmic, but for (just) CO2 in the recorded range of recent times [say 180 - 420ppm] the surface warming effect works out to be approx 1.2 degreesC for a doubling of CO2 concentration. On top of that, must be added the feedback warming from the consequent rise in atmospheric H2O vapor (a figure somewhat greater than 1.2C) .

OldHickory, you will understand that I am not wishing to write a large number of paragraphs to explain all this in greater detail personally to you. This SkS website exists for the express purpose of providing a wealth of climate science information. It is your duty to yourself, to go and really read the original article at the head of this thread, at the Basic & Intermediate & Advanced levels. And to read other related articles here at SkS and elsewhere. When you have done that, it will become obvious why all the scientists are right.

How to inoculate yourself against misinformation

MA Rodger at 19:56 PM on 7 July, 2022

Petra Liverani @68,

I do not see any connection which would require you to begin the comment "Just to add,..." You appear to be suggesting that certain argument proves nothing yet will still be savaged by those responding.

Simply stating "The climate's always changed," or "CO2 is plant food" does not of itself contradict the accepted fundings of climatology. I think you would need to set out the use of such statements (& the responses) to be able to judge whether "the kind of responses" were inappropriate.

To provide such context for your "The climate's always changed" statement, the first listed SkS myth cites Dickie Lindzen who is an actual clomatologist but who has never accepted the science of AGW and has done a lot of work attempting to overturn that science. Yet despite his best efforts, he has established nothing and in his attempts to establish something has adopted many egregious arguments like "The climate's always changed."

Indeed, the climate has always changed but that does not prevent us understanding why it changes and thus seeing that it has not changed before like today's AGW. Even the PETM which was also driven by rising CO2 levels took tens of thousands of years when we are driving the climate in mere centuries.

The "CO2 is plant food" argument is listed as the SkS's 43rd myth which describes why elevated CO2 is not entirely a good thing for plants. And do note that the plants are not very hungry for CO2 as they are only eating up a quarter of the CO2 we serve up.

How to inoculate yourself against misinformation

Eclectic at 13:54 PM on 2 July, 2022

David-acct @14 , you are making an extraordinary comment.

Firstly, your <"if scientists discover a forcing that is a greater factor than CO2 as a primary driver of warming"> argument is a complete strawman. (Presumably you are talking about the modern rapid "AGW" part of the Holocene . . . i.e. the sole topic of climate controversy during the past half-century.)

A strawman, because no mysterious unknown forcing has shown a niche for its own existence. No evidence has been demonstrated that might point to its possible existence.

Yes, in the past there were suggestions/proposals by Svensmark, Lindzen and others, but all such ideas crashed due to lack of any supporting evidence. But importantly, their "counter-CO2" ideas were not suppressed or censored. Those ideas were examined by scientists, and found to be without validity ~ and they are now in the category of disinformation (their only supporters are crackpots or worse).

The same goes for the continuing purveyors of <"it's all due to natural cycles of ocean currents/ orbits of Jupiter/ etcetera. >" Cycles which are 90% fanciful and 100% unphysical as a causation of [AGW]. These purveyors are desperadoes who a not censored by scientists, but are simply laughed at (or more generally ignored).

David-acct , I should also point out that if a significantly large "unknown" warming forcing were to be discovered, then there would also need to be the discovery of a (simultaneous) unknown cooling forcing (to neatly counteract the modern rise of CO2's forcing). David, I suspect you know in your heart that the chance of such a Double Whammy is infinitesimally small. In other words - you have created a strawman argument. Pigs = flying.

Suppression, stifling, censorship . . . all are fanciful arguments. Let's not waste any more time going down that road.

As to Covid matters : you will need to find another thread to discuss the issue. Unfortunately, you have been extremely vague in your accusations against the CDC. And I strongly suspect you are harboring a hotch-potch of distorted half-truths there ~ but I will wait to see if you can provide any evidence on that other thread. Good luck with it. My initial bet is that you have chosen to be the victim of medical misinformation and/or disiniformation.

Philippe C @7 , I owe you an apology for my slightly ungrammatical misquote "Vive la indifference" @13. It looked better that way for English readers, I thought. You will forgive me I hope, even if the Academie cannot.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #21 2022

One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 30 May, 2022

"Homo bolidus" was indeed presented by you in your comment on the 2012 SkS post by dana1981 "Lindzen, Happer and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun".

Revisiting that item highlights how difficult it is for public opinion to be 'improved to reduce harm done' by attempts to get people to have increased awareness and improved understanding the evidence based fuller story related to harm done on any issue. So much of the harmful misunderstanding in 2012 is alive and kicking harder today.

The legacy dominance of utilitarian beliefs that 'harm done can be dismissed or justified by claims that some people benefit from the harmful unsustainable activity and associated developed harmful misunderstandings' is hard to correct. People motivated by competitive pursuit of higher status can be very reluctant to learn that their current status or desired ways of obtaining more benefit are harmful obtained and unsustainable. Giving up potential for more benefit and making amends for harm done can be contrary to their liking. And they will readily believe and support purveyors of harmful misleading messages. They can even be seen to become more irrationally determined to believe that 'increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and the required corrections' is a political ideology that is harmfully trying to 'cancel their type of people'.

It is tragic that a harmfully misled minority can have so much influence due to 'Defending and demanding Freedom to believe what they want and do as they please'.

2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7

Eclectic at 11:47 AM on 27 February, 2022

Santalives @19 , it is always a fine day for me when I come across two good jokes in a day. (A) The first is that you say you've read "nearly every one of the [over 200] Climate Myth and many of the comments." And how you felt that the comments were not arranged by date. Thank you for your personal revelations in these matters. Difficult to top.

(B) The second joke: was the David Coe et al., paper which you linked to @ WattsUpWithThat blogsite. Hilarious. Even your paper by the good professor Koutsoyiannis looks half-way sane in comparison.

Santalives, sit down and put your thinking cap on. As Philippe Chantreau [above] says, the Coe paper is wildly . . . wildly . . . inconsistent with everything that's within arm-reach of conventional climate science. IIRC, only the good Lord Monckton has ever come out with a similar figure to Coe's ultra-low 0.5K figure for total climate sensitivity to CO2. And Monckton seems to produce new & wildly high/low ECS figures annually (but with a strong bias toward Zero).

Now, I've looked through the WUWT assessment of the Coe paper. Not encouraging, at all. As usual, a number of commenters there deny that CO2 absorbs radiation and/or deny that there is any GreenHouse Effect whatsoever. At my own time of writing [>80 comments] no expert scientist has appeared to make comment at WUWT . Especially no climate scientist. Yes, that is the usual lofty standard of scientific analysis at WUWT .

# However, Santalives, if you scroll down to a couple of comments by Rud Istvan [an intelligent & well-informed guy, if you make allowance for his bad case of motivated reasoning on climate] . . . you will find he shows that some semi-respectable "contrarian" scientists such as Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen give a climate sensitivity of 1.1 - 1.2 for CO2 alone [without the large additional feedback from H2O ].

'Nuff said. The Coe paper you mentioned is simply garbage. Santalives, please remember the acronym GIGO ~ where sometimes you see the Garbage going In . . . and sometimes (e.g. with Coe et al., ) you see the Garbage coming Out.

# Oh, Santalives, I did come across a joke yesterday :

"My math teacher really hated negative numbers. Hated them. He would stop at nothing to avoid them."

CO2 effect is saturated

MA Rodger at 23:19 PM on 13 September, 2021

Eclectic @625,

Of course, there is the point as to whether you should be referring to that paper as Wijngaarden & Happer (2020). Academic work is usually only dated if it is properly published or if it is presented at a conference. Otherwise it would be demoted to being a working paper which is thus not complete and thus not properly dateable. And I would suggest that up-loading a paper onto Cornell University's "free distributon service" arXvi doesn't count as 'publication', it being no-more 'published' than this comment I post here at SkS.

But the proof of the pudding and all that....

Whatever tha nature of a piece of work's origin, it is its usefulness to the science that is the proper measure of it. A look at google scholar for Wijngaarden & Happer (unpublished) 'Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases' shows today just four citations, which is pretty rubbish. And one of those is a reference from a further Wijngaarden & Happer paper posted @arXvi which is but an updated version of the same while accounting for two more GHGs, CF4 & SF6. Of the remaining three, one explicitly styles itself a working paper. (I note its reference list is stuffed full of denialist nonsense: Koonin & Jon-boy Christy, Lewis & Dicky Lindzen, McIntyre & McKitrick & Monckton, Svensmark & Woy Spencer.) The final two citations do initially appear to be by published work. But in tracking down both ♣Pascal Richet (2021): 'Climate and the temperature-CO2 relationship An epistemological re-examination of the ice core message', History of Geo- and Space Sciences, Vol 12, pp97-110. and ♣David Coe; Fabinski, Walter & Weigleb, Gerhard (2021): 'The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other "Greenhouse Gases" on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures' Int J. Atmos. & Oceanic Sci.,Vol 5, Issue 2, pp29-40. I see either a blank space in the pp97-110 page-numbering or the pages pp29-41 taken by another paper. So it appears that the final two citations have failed to gain publication; not so uncommon with denialist works which both these final two citing paper evidently are. (An on-line French version of the first of these two simply presents a common climate myth while a posting of the second's Abstract still visible on a denialist website shows its finding is an ECS=+0.5ºC.)

....turns out to be a large bowl of rather-sticky humble pie.

The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

Bob Loblaw at 05:42 AM on 13 June, 2021

Oh, Nick. You're repeating yourself, and it does not stand you in good stead.

"The short answer is that Big Oil continued to support the "B.S. factories" because they were effective at trying to protect those corporations against unwarranted attack."

I really hope that you do not consider sound science (even with uncertainties) to be "an unwarranted attack".

If you are referring to non-scientific organizations such as Greenpeace, then I hope that you are not saying that unwarranted attacks justify B.S., simply because it is "effective".

"...most seem to have been happy to accept Greenpeace et al's interpretation of events as gospel..."

A strawman position...

"I refer you again (3rd time) to my quote of Carbonbrief's article and the words of top climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M Uni."

Repeating the quote is certainly not necessary. Using phrases such as "top climate scientist" represent an argument from authority. I was already teaching undergraduate and graduate climatology courses when Andrew Dessler was still a grad student. I had and have direct knowledge of the primary peer-reviewed scientific literature from that time.

I hope that you do not think that the 1.5C to 4.5 C sensitivity range is a complete summary of climate science.

I hope that you do not think that there was a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the lower limit back in the 1980s. There was lots of uncertainty of regional effects. Lots of uncertainty about cloud feedback effects (but unlikely to be strongly negative).

From the 1990 IPCC sumamry for policy makers:

There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of:

• sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, which affect predictions of future concentrations
• clouds, which strongly influence the magnitude of climate change
• oceans, which influence the timing and patterns of climate change
• polar ice sheets which affect predictions of sea level rise

These processes are already partially understood, and we
are confident that the uncertainties can be reduced by
further research However, the complexity of the system
means that we cannot rule out surprises

THe 1990 IPCC report includes quite a bit of discussion about these uncertainties, and what needs to be done to sort them out.

One of the very few sources of a realistic argument for low sensitivity was Lindzen's "Iris effect". As Lindzhen had a good reputation as a meteorologist, this hypothesis was taken seriously. It did not pan out.

Most of the rest of the "sensitivity is low" arguments were B.S. Many were clearly B.S. in the 1980s - and are still B.S. now, even though they keep getting repeated..

Dessler may feel that the uncertainty was underestimated. Do you have any evidence of an actual number that he would put on it?

Did Exxon choose to push the known uncertainties and realistic scientifically-supportable possibitiies? No. As you admit, they chose the Baffle Them With B.S. option.

You seem to feel that was justified on their part. I do not.

"...the views of sensitivity at the time were just not solid enough to mandate massive corporation change..."

...but they were solid enough to start to invest considerable money (albeit probably peanuts for Big Oil) in the B.S. factories, in an attempt to preserve and maximize corporate profits for as long as possible.

If Big OIl's approach was so honorable, then why did they try to hide the path of the money and keep their name off it?

If you were to argue that Big Oil's corporate responsibility is to maximize shareholder value regardless of ethics, then I would concede the point.

Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Eclectic at 09:33 AM on 28 May, 2021

Nigelj , I am in much agreement with you. MA Rodger earlier pointed out the long back-story of Koonin's employment in the oil industry.

People can change . . . but sometimes they don't . . . and it is easy to see the possibility that Koonin's previous sphere of employment would give him a bias towards retrospective justification of his earlier activities.

There is no need to posit any recent financial influencing of Koonin. The past connection may well be enough, psychologically, to have him self-censor his intellect.

Nigelj, I am sure you can think of many cases where prominent individuals have been "turned" by means of big amounts of money. But psychologists' experiments show that one can often achieve large influence through surprisingly small payments. It seems the smallness of the reward causes the recipients to over-compensate by becoming even stronger in their advocacy role. Example: the very small stipend that was paid by Peabody to Lindzen.

But we needn't get too bogged down in all these sorts of analyses. The real problem is the actions of the deniers, rather than their motivations (which are difficult to change).

Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Jim Hunt at 21:04 PM on 27 May, 2021

Eclectic @17:

I selected a different quotation from Mark Boslough as my favourite in a recent review article:

https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/unsettling-koonin-critiques-continue/

Most of the technical mistakes and misrepresentations in “Unsettled” may simply be attributable to Koonin’s trust of those advisors and lack of rigorous independent verification.

"Those advisors" being John Christy, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen.

Plus an informative infographic from his suggested source:

Dr. Ben Santer: Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

MA Rodger at 21:49 PM on 25 May, 2021

Eclectic @3,

The promotion of Koonin to premier-league climate-change dnier does give the opportunity to demolish another of these folk. He certainly gets a bit of a kicking here and here.

So what is his message?

This New York Post OP from Koonin appears to be saying that, while the science is sound, the problem is with the interpretation of the science. Yet while the exemplars he gives are probably flat wrong, they are not central to the AGW science so quite irrelevant in the full analysis. The only other thing he presents in this OP about his grand message is:-

"Humans exert a growing, but physically small, warming influence on the climate. The results from many different climate models disagree with, or even contradict, each other and many kinds of observations. In short, the science is insufficient to make useful predictions about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it."

This he says he learned at the feet of Lindzen, Curry & Christie during the APS RedTeam-BkueTeam exercise Koonin chaired in 2013, an exercise that contains nothing of merit that I can see.

And as for climate models making useful predictions, they've done a pretty good job up to now.

So whay actually is Koonin bleeting about? Waht is his message? It would be good to see the actual message because so far all I hear is a blowhard!!

2021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19

MA Rodger at 15:41 PM on 10 May, 2021

nigelj @5,

If you believe Koonin, in his recent NY Post OP he tells us he was fully-signed-up to the science of AGW until he took part in the 2014 APS Climate Change Review Workshop which he chaired. The APS found nothing in this workshop to change its stance on AGW which pitted the science against the grand theorising of John-boy Christy, Judy Curry & Dicky Lindzen, a falsely-balanced debate that had been exposed as nonsense for decades. So why Koonin was so strongly convinced by the denialist arguments, indeed his role in setting up the event (he has been advocatng the use of such a process ever since), does need more explanation from Koonin, explanation which is simply absent.

His work with BP back in the 2000s involved biofuels which do present a problem with high land-use but it would be a fool who took a decade to spot that truth and, then without pause jump to the view expressed in his Sept 2014 OP. While the usual take-away from this Sept 2014 OP is his denial of the science, it is actually a call to resolve the divide (the unresolvable divide) between AGW "belief" and AGW "hoax", to resolve through re-directing scientific effort, as this resolution "should be among the top priorities for climate research." But I neither see any emphasis being made by Koonin in 2014 that the cure (a zero carbon economy) would be a worse outcome that AGW. Nor do I see any emphasis by Koonin in 2021 any message calling to re-direct the scientific effort. The only sign of his continued holding of this view is his involvement in the RedTeam/BlueTeam initiatives, not the most scientific methods of tackling science.

A year later as the Paris climate talks draw near, Koonin is advocating AGW adaptation because mitigation cannot be achieved in time, a new slant on things again.

Now his 2021 OP (and presumaby his grand book) he brands talk of a climate emergency and the policies to address it as being fallacy, basing this on some very silly denialist nonsense.

So Koonin presents a wibbly-wobbly argument against AGW science. And if anybody sees in this reason not to brand Koonin a nought but a vaccuous blowhard, I'd be interested to hear that reason.

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

MA Rodger at 22:29 PM on 2 May, 2021

Eclectic @349,

I think what you call "quite a laundry list" presented by commenter lindzenfanone @348 is less a laundry list and more a nonsensical rant. (The commenter doesn't start well in my book with his chosen nom-de-clavier. For me Dicky Lindzen is today a proven liar who long-ago turned away from the scientific method.)
The rant begins effectively saying that there is no available ontological truth which of course will make all argument circular. This is followed by some silliness about naturally-emitted CO2 and anthropogenic-emitted CO2 requiring to act differently with AGW science. The non-correlation comment could be presented statistically if it were not so crazy and wrong, this followed by poorly presented statements that try (but fail badly) to set out reason to support a bold (and with the failure, unsupported) assertion that "IPCC's core theory is wrong!!"

The links appended to the comment lead to a number of dubious published papers that don't bear scrutiny**, Berry (2019) 'Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2' (two links provided), Humlum et al (20130 'The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature', Koutsoyiannis & Kundzewicz (2020) 'Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-Or-Egg Causality?' and Harde (2019) 'What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations' (**These 'usual suspects' have been publishing drivel like this for years. If these particular papers presented anything game-chnging for AGW, indeed anything at all new and worthy of some small consideration, then that 'something' is failing to appear either within the denialist world or in the real world.)

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

Eclectic at 21:07 PM on 2 May, 2021

Lindzenfanone @348 :

You have quite a laundry list there. Much of it is wrong, but I guess you don't really care about that ~ since you obviously haven't bothered to educate yourself about climate science.

My next guess is that you are making a giant leg-pull. (Only on something like WattsUpWithThat website could your "ideas" be taken seriously.)

But I do have a question: Why your "Lindzen" connection with climate? For more than 15 years, Prof Lindzen has been moving away from scientific thinking and has been making his religious beliefs an emotional basis for his (largely rhetorical) speeches.

How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?

Eclectic at 19:41 PM on 27 October, 2020

Boston745 , your "observations and associations" are just personal anecdotes. Not scientific evidence. They seem to be your "feelings". Contrarians have all sorts of "feelings" ~ often mutually contradictory. That's one of the reasons why they can't get their act together.

Yes, those "qualified scientists" (who are very, very, very few) do deserve to be completely dismissed, since they completely fail to provide any valid evidence to overthrow the mainstream climate science. They talk hot air ~ empty rhetoric.

Instances : Drs Lindzen, Spencer, Curry - failed ideas or vague blather based on religious beliefs. No actual backing from scientific observations. And even they don't bother to advocate "magnetospheres and cosmic rays".

Boston745 , have you other "qualified scientists" who are contrarian enough to disagree with the mainstream science - and what is their substantive evidence that they are right and the mainstream is wrong? And why haven't they published it? Major scientific journals would be enthusiastic & delighted to publish some really cutting-edge ground-breaking stuff ! But the contrarians can't come up with anything valid.

Genuine science exists in the collective summary of peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals - it does not reside in fruitcake blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. (If you wonder why I use the label fruitcake, then just go and read through WUWT. )

Clouds provide negative feedback

Brainspin at 19:58 PM on 15 September, 2020

To this layman, a new report (Saint‐Lu et al 2020) seems to support Lindzen's "Iris effect" (that high cloud cover in the tropics diminish with increased temperature), but at the same time finds that high clouds have a neutral effect on global warming:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL089059

Polar bear numbers are increasing

Bob Loblaw at 10:40 AM on 8 June, 2020

Prager U is a notoriously unreliable source for scientific information on climate change. A long history of misinformation.

For another takedown, read Barry Bickmore's perspective (not polar-bear-specific, so starting to wander off topic here):

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/dick-lindzen-prager-u-and-the-art-of-lying-well/

Climate's changed before

MA Rodger at 19:49 PM on 25 February, 2020

theSkeptik @813,

Such is the composition of your specific responses (not least to my comment @810) that I feel you should be made aware of how far you are from grasping the reality of the climatology you criticise. This makes addressing the substance of your comment (which actually has some merit) an impossibility.

Thus (& specific to you reply to my comment @810), what you call my "first argument" is correcting your error @808 by pointing out the well-known situation that the CO2 measured from ice cores is measuring trapped air. You move on from this 'correction' and on to the so-far-unmentioned-by-you problem of the difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air entrapped within the ice which as you correctly say is not addressed in this SkS post. It is addressed on a different SkS post which is linked within the above SkS post. "Unfortunately" you are unable to cope with that situation.

Similarly, you use part of what I present within what you call my "second argument" to begin anew with a different argument that an absence of Antarctic warming is equivalent to there being no global warming. (Actually if this were the issue, more up-to-date temperature data, so for instance the warming below -70ºS measured by GISTEMP, records a great deal of Antarctic warming over recent years.)

Finally you are flat wrong to suggest that you "do not make any claims about any relationships between GHG and temperature or other related parameters." Whatever your experience in "just looking for unbiased information," do not deny that you yourself come here with "overinterpreted data and conclusions driven by preoccupation," and I would suggest your two comments @808 & @813 show you are more pre-occupied than those you criticise.

The SkS post above, addresses the nonsense myth set out by denialist Richard Lindzen that "climate is always changing" and thus "wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence." You may be unsatisfied that this SkS post properly addresses Lindzen's denialist argument. And I may agree with you on that specific-but-narrow point. But such a deficiency does not, as you attempt to argue, make the underlying thesis wrong. And you failure to present consistent and trustworthy analysis suggests proper discussion of all this likely a little pointless.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

Eclectic at 23:50 PM on 16 February, 2020

You're welcome, JoeZ @84. I am frequently lurking and/or posting on SkS and WUWT . . . so really it was only a minor co-incidence (and not Divine retribution) that you were exposed.

Your second sentence was rather ambiguous ~ it is almost as though you're saying you are presenting mutually-opposed opinions in two different forums [or "fora", if you live in Boston ;-) ]. But (pending any denial from you) I will take it that wasn't what you meant . . . in which case :- why would you object anyone reading the available totality of your opinions?

But - cutting to the Chase - I myself (and almost all readers at SkS ) greatly welcome any climate skepticism that you can present.

So far, however, you have not expressed any valid points of climate skepticism. And before you reply, please consult your English dictionary for the precise meaning of skepticism ~ for skepticism does not mean the contrarianism and/or science-denialism which you find everywhere at WUWT ! . . . with the honorable exception of WUWT comments by the very few there who are intellectually sane e.g. by Stokes, Mosher, and a couple of others not yet banned. [WUWT is a marvellous study in Motivated Reasoning ~ where otherwise-intelligent people repeatedly maintain the craziest concepts . . . and revel in the little echo-chamber where they can angrily vent their outrage & denial of reality.]

So, JoeZ , please present your skepticism about the evidence found in mainstream climate science. But I must warn you that Professors Lindzen, Svensmark & other denialists . . . have thus far entirely failed to find any evidence to invalidate the modern science.

Good luck, JoeZ ~ I sincerely hope you can uncover the "killer" evidence which will send all the world's scientists rushing back to the collective drawing-board. It will be a great relief to everyone, to learn that "AGW" is grossly wrong and there's no "climate emergency" whatsoever.

But until I see your genuine evidence, I shall have to remain . . . skeptical.

1934 - hottest year on record

Eclectic at 00:45 AM on 3 February, 2020

Map , you are being mysterious.

<" multiple outcomes that support and contradict the basis of global warming ">

This needs some explaining from you! It doesn't fit in with the general mainstream science of climate. The world's scientists have spent a great deal of time & effort (over many decades indeed) and have produced a coherent description of the physics of it all. The science is demonstrated in many thousands of scientific papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals.

They are pretty much unanimous in their findings. Yes, there are a few "contrarian" papers ~ but all of these show major faults ( e.g. Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis; Svensmark's and Shaviv's Cosmic Rays Hypothesis; Salby's Ocean-outgassing of CO2 Hypothesis ).

In short, Map, the evidence is wholly one-sided. There is no valid alternative.

Map, I think you are playing a joke. (But why do you bother?)

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Doug_C at 06:51 AM on 20 January, 2020

michael sweet @131

I fully disagree with your entire position on nuclear power and the LNT which was the result of Cold War politics not sound science.

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

Considering the fact that we are all exposed to ionizing radiation and all life has been from the start of life almost 4 billion years ago on an Earth that had far higher levels of ionizing radiation, how likely is that ionizing radiation is a risk down to a zero dose rate.

The LNT model of risk from ionizing radiation was a response to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the radiophobia that has resulted has been used by a sector that presents an actualy existential threat to life itself on Earth while at the same time causing the early deaths of millions of people a year from air pollution alone before we look at all the other negative impacts of fossil fuels including the wars that are often rooted in the conflicts over fossil fuels. Donald Trump just stated it is an American goal to seize Syrian oil deposits, a war crime.

When we look at the worst scenario nuclear reactor accident with a reactor type that will never be built again as was a function of the lack of competence and respect for safety by the regime that built it, the direct impacts to people is still a tiny fraction of what we accept from fossil fuels daily.

They don't even know how many people died from the Chernobyl accident becaused the increased rates of cancer even under the LNT are so small in relation to the other background causes. The highest estimates are about 500 people. That is about 1/23rd of the deaths that are caused by fossil fuels generated air pollution daily.

Anti-nuclear activists like Helen Caldicott have made totally unsupported claims that close to 1 million deaths resulted from the Chernobyl accident, contradicting even their own ealier claims.

Nuclear opponents have a moral duty to get their facts straight

Arnie Gundersen was making almost the same claims about the Fukushima accident.

Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen: Fukushima Meltdown Could Result in 1 Million Cases of Cancer

What exactly are you afraid of with nuclear power, it's clear that more than a few anti-nuclear activists are not basing their hysterical claims on science or reality itself.

Based on the massively exagerated claims by people who treat all ionizing radiation as an almost inevitable death sentence you'd think that people exposed to the most extreme human generated forms would all die very early deaths.

Let's start with Chernobyl and the several hundred emergency response personnel who were working next to an exposed nuclear core on fire

Health effects in those with acute radiation sickness from the Chernobyl accident.

Of those hundreds of personnel, 134 were diagnosed with ARS, should be and immediate death sentence based on the conventional "wisdom" that holds what an extreme threa to life all ionizing radiation is.

Of those 134 people, 29 died in the following months, mostly from the same kind of skin infections third degree burn victims would. In this case it was the beta burns from the intense radiation.

By 2001 a further 14 had died, does that sound like the death sentence that mainstream radiophobia would have us all treat any IR exposure as.

In a much less savory case who' ethics I'm not going to debate as I think what was done was deplorable, people diagnosed with terminal illnesses in the US were administered without their knowledge plutonium, the "most dangerous" substance on Earth going by the kind of treatment that you claim is based on sound science.

Some of them were misdiagnised and lived for decades with plutonium in their bodies.

Human Plutonium Injection Experiments

I don't work in the nuclear sector, I don't even have a degree, a serious disability has severely limited my life. I don't have children, I do have many nieces and nephews and the world we are leaving for them causes me anguish.

If I can figure out how broken the LNT model is and how totally irrational our entire approach to nuclear power is by book from libraries and online resources, then what does that say about the entire field of science that is still struggling to do anything about this nightmare we are all caught up in.

Some scientists like Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Tim Ball have and still, used their credientials and standing to totally distort the existential threat we all face from fossil fuels climate change. And yet they are still treated as part of this profession.

I have been taking verbal abuse from the people who they feed their intellectual fraud to online for years in a attempt to advocate for some form of sanity including from Tim Ball at WUWT because I dared to point out that his claims that water vapour were the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere was falacious as could be seen by the very title of his article. It there as a vapour not a gas and therefore isn't stable without the presense of another persisent gas namely carbon dioxide. His response and the many people who chimed in were abusive to say the least. But isn't that the point, to eliminate any opposition to your position no matter the cost to others.

Unlikely as I thought it to be, I find myself facing the same kind of treatment here.

I don't care for your baseless ad hominem against me because I simply want life not death to dominate our future.

As the subtext of your comment is that I and my views are simply not welcome here I won't frequent this site again and will treat it in the end like I do WUWT. As a meaningless spinning of wheels to comfort people as nothing real is done to save ourselves from an existential threat of our own making.

I'll go with the insights of some of the most brilliant scientists to have lived like Eugene Wigner and Alvin Weinberg who both held that nuclear power would be our salvation.

I simply have no time for people who are fomenting the same kind of intellectual fraud that has given us anti-vaxxers.

The Harmful and Fraudulent Basis for the LNT Assumption

At some point we are going to realize that views like yours are what is helping to kill us all, I just hope it's before it's to late to build the tens of thousands of nuclear reactors that we actually need to replace all fossil fuels.

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 15:38 PM on 7 January, 2020

Hmmph. If Dr Curry were an actor, then you would see her in B-grade movies, at best.

Dr Lindzen would be the equivalent of Marlon Brando in his last few years ~ someone who once received some respect from those in the industry . . . but was now "washed up" and coasting along on the remnants of his past reputation. Sic transit.

Dr Happer . . . also the Emeritus Syndrome, plus something a bit uglier.

Let's move on from the Ad Hom sketches, and look at the actual arguments that Curry puts forward as a "contrarian".

Her arguments ~ well, she doesn't have any really. She has asserted that for late 20th Century warming, "up to about 60%" of it might (possibly) be caused by a concurrence of several long-cycle periodic ocean current phases (multi-decadal Atlantic overturning current plus other much longer century/multi-century cycles . . . cycles which most scientists consider to be no more than a twinkle in the eye of their "discoverers"). In other words, a load of balderdash. But a straw which the desperate denialists like to grasp at.

All the while, Curry wears heavily-shaded glasses which are pachyderm-polarised to show very little of the Elephant in the Room i.e. CO2 .

Yes, Curry does admit that CO2 has a mild effect on global warming, but maintains that after you subtract the surface warming effect of those concurrent ocean cycles, the remaining minor warming shows that CO2 is a minimal problem because it must be that the planet's ECS (climate sensitivity) is quite low.

That's about the size of it. The rest of her rhetoric is simply empty rhetoric ~ confusing & vague distractions from the underlying reality. Just what certain American senators/Congressmen wish to hear. So they call her up to speak to "committees" and thus provide themselves with a veneer of excuse to take no action on AGW.

Essentially Curry is a misinformer, through the use of vagueness and innuendo. Like an expensive barrister arguing for a guilty-as-sin client, she usually does not step over the line of absolute mendacity. Not quite.

There is no consensus

KR at 06:40 AM on 21 December, 2019

PatrickSS - WRT those three you mentioned:

Dyson is a brilliant physicist - but not a climate scientist. Lindzen, who has worked at the CATO Institute, is well known in the field for a series of papers claiming a strong negative feedback; he has never actually addressed actual (and numerous) criticisms of the first 'Iris effect' paper, simply repeating his claims over and over. In the last version I'm aware of he directly invoked 'cloud forcing', when clouds are, rather, a short lived (hours) feedback to temperature and humidity. And as for Happer (also not a climate scientist), he has been documented as writing climate science for pay, with fossil fuel money routed through nonprofit organizations for anonymity. Happer is more properly a lobbyist, not a researcher.

You might want to look for better references.

It's the sun

One Planet Only Forever at 02:13 AM on 21 December, 2019

scaddenp,

I share your skepticism regarding the motivations of PatrickSS.

They do not appear to be interested in expanded awareness and improved understanding.

Instead of starting with a detailed understanding of the subject, they appear to be seeking excuses to not expand their awareness or improve their understanding (though they sound interested by 'asking questions').

As an example, in previous comments they present their summary understanding of presentations of understanding by "“consensus” climate scientists" (their term of reference) as "...sunlight comes in, heats the Earth, and the heat escapes from the Earth via IR. Increased CO2 absorbs and blocks more IR, so the Earth gets warmer." They then compare that with what they consider to be more believable presentations by Lindzen, Allen and Curry (they are more impressed by these people than they are by the "consensus" climate scientists that they present an extremely poor level of understanding of).

In addition they appear to have summarized my previous comments to them regarding pursuit of expanded awareness and understanding of climate science matters as "... assertions that there is "masses of evidence" out there that shows that the Connollys are completely wrong and that I should go and look for it":

"There is a massive diversity of evidence supporting the climate science consensus understanding that human activities, particularly fossil fuel use, are significantly impacting the global climate in ways that are detrimental to the future generations."

"Seek out detailed explanations of the incorrect aspects of the claims made by Lindzen, Alley and Curry. There are many sources for the corrected expanded understanding (and a vast amount is available right here on the SkS site)."

I believe you are correct to suspect that PatrickSS has not read, and is unlikely to read, any IPCC document. I would add that I suspect that PatrickSS filters information for its 'ability to impress them, suit their preferred beliefs'. My comments were an attempt to make them aware of that.

There is no consensus

MA Rodger at 20:14 PM on 20 December, 2019

PatrickSS @868,

My appologies for not spotting @856 your referencing of Question 12 in the Climate Science Survey which sets out the data used within Verheggen et al (2014). Your complain was that this Q12 was not featured within Verheggen et al (2014). Were the responses to Q12 as you set out up-thread @856 it may perhaps be considered an omission. You wrote:-

Now we discover that only 33% of climate scientists are more than "somewhat concerned", and 8.5% are "not very concerned" or "not concerned at all".

This is completely incorrect. The more than "somewhat concerned" figure (so "very concerned") is not 33% but 67%. More exactly, if the data for the "respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications" reported by Verheggen et al is gleaned from Figure 12.2, it is 71% who are 'very concerned', 22% 'somewhat concerned' and just 7% who are less concerned than this. To me, here is a 93% concensus.

Those who may be inclined to peel off the 22% 'somewhat concerned' from this concensus should consider how the question would be answered in 2012. "How concerned are you about climate change as a long-term global problem?" For a climatologist in 2012, a 'somewhat concerned' response could result from a belief that mitigation measures will arrive to to prevent AGW becoming a serious crisis for humanity, or that in the "long term" AGW is not a serious crisis because, whatever the damage through the next century, in the "long term" humanity will survive, the natural world will survive. We are not taking about a humanless or lifeless planet by the end of the millennium.

The additional comment @868 that various swivel-eyed denialists would have been included in the headline 91% result of Verheggen et al (2014) is firstly incorrect as three of them are not qualified as authors and secondly, while Dickie Lindzen & Judy Curry sometimes try to argue that they would be part of such a consensus gathered from such surveys, their position is not entirely sincere and they surely could not honestly feature in the Q12 result.

There is no consensus

PatrickSS at 06:51 AM on 20 December, 2019

Estoma I will check out the Iris Effect

Rodger, did you read the summary of the raw data that I pointed you to? Here's the link again:

https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses

What do you think of the responses to Q12?

Isn't it very odd that Bart V and colleagues didn't mention Q12 in their paper?

And do you realize that the "91%" quoted on this page includes Lindzen, Happer, Dyson, Curry and Ridley?

Thx for all your responses. I'm going to the "It's the sun" page.

There is no consensus

Estoma at 22:22 PM on 19 December, 2019

I don't make many posts but as far as my knowledge of Lindzen, he's always been a luke warmer who believes the doubling of CO2 will only produce a temperature rise of 1 degree celcius, ignoring any type of feedbacks. We've already risen 1 degree and we've increased CO2 less than 50% of a doubling.

In addition, his Iris effect theory, that as temperature increases they'll be less moisture and fewer clouds that will cause more infrared radition to escape has been shown by several studies since then, to not be the case.

There is no consensus

MA Rodger at 21:16 PM on 19 December, 2019

PatrickSS @862,

You present three names in response to my request @858 for the scientists you tell us "think that doubling CO2 will raise the world temp by about 1C," a position you appear to set as equal in importance to "those who think that doubling CO2 will raise the world temp by about 3C." It's not much of a list. Do note that two of these are not climatologists and further, I do not see that any of them present substantive reasons to support their bold claims. This is evidently not two sets of scientists arguing. It is sadly science under attack from a handful of swivel-eyed lunatics.

In support of my own rather bold statement, I would share with you my view of the one climatologist you name - the veteran climate denier Richard Lindzen. He has been at this game so long that he has lost entirely his grasp on the science he is supposed to be practising and now resorts to bare-faced-lies/deluded-foolishness [delete as applicable]. He has certainly ventured far beyond the science of climatology with his nonsense. See his 2017 version here and tick off the numerous examples of untruth he presents. (And to keep us on-topic, note his first attempt to refute AGW is "The 97 Percent Meme".)

I note you cite Dickie Lindzen when you say "Increasing CO2 causes the IR to be emitted at slightly greater altitude. This warms the surface because the temperature at which the emission takes place is the same, so when the lower atmosphere is chaotically mixed the air reaching the surface is hotter (because it gets compressed as it comes down)." I am not sure where Lindzen explaining this mechanism but the way you phrase it is subject to vast misinterpretation.

You add that Judy Curry has had difficulty getting published yet if she has anything worth publishing she only has to post it on her website to get it into the scientific/public domain. Yet there is complete absence of any substantive comtribution from Curry, an absence that speaks volumes.

@862 you say you do not feel your "main argument" has not be "really engaged." You appear to be arguing that the scientific view of AGW is not truly reflected in the 97% consensus and specifically that Verheggen et al (2014) is 'obviously not' fairly summarised by the 91% value. I find this difficult to accept. Perhaps we are reading a different paper.

There is no consensus

One Planet Only Forever at 09:51 AM on 19 December, 2019

PartickSS @864,

Expanded awareness and improved understanding are based on all available evidence, not bits of it.

A person who makes a solid sounding science statement but then also makes an unscientific claim that is contrary to aspects of 'all of the available evidence (makes an illogical leap that is happily followed by someone who was impressed by the earlier Sciency Show and likes where the leap takes them thought-wise), is not helping to expand awareness and understanding. They are potentially corrupting efforts to expand awareness and improve understanding by the use of misleading marketing.

Seek out detailed explanations of the incorrect aspects of the claims made by Lindzen, Alley and Curry. There are many sources for the corrected expanded understanding (and a vast amount is available right here on the SkS site).

You should find many explanations that are 'even more compelling than the claim made that you liked', unless you choose not to become more aware (don't seek out the expanded awareness and improved understanding), or not want to develop improved understanding (do not wish to accept that fossil fuel burning has to be rapidly ended).

That understanding should clarify my comment regarding Curry.

There is no consensus

PatrickSS at 07:49 AM on 19 December, 2019

DB, can't I say that it's incredibly unfortunate that climate science has become political?

One Planet, when I listen to “consensus” climate scientists, they say that sunlight comes in, heats the Earth, and the heat escapes from the Earth via IR. Increased CO2 absorbs and blocks more IR, so the Earth gets warmer.

When I listen to Richard Lindzen he says that CO2 and H2O already absorb all the IR emitted at the Earth's surface, and that the IR that escapes is actually emitted high in the atmosphere. Increasing CO2 causes the IR to be emitted at slightly greater altitude. This warms the surface because the temperature at which the emission takes place is the same, so when the lower atmosphere is chaotically mixed the air reaching the surface is hotter (because it gets compressed as it comes down).

That seems to me to be "expanding awareness and improving understanding". He seems to be a good communicator and a good scientist. It seems unlikely that he invented the whole thing.

Then I watched Richard Alley on youtube. He is a very good communicator, and at first I found his argument very convincing. He said that the ice ages were driven by cycles of the sun at 100,000, 41,000, 23,000 and (I think it was) 19,000 years. Then he said that the sun cycles (periodically) released CO2, and the CO2 drove temperature. So we have sun -> CO2 -> temp. But the sun can only act through temperature. So we have sun -> temp -> CO2 -> temp. Suddenly it seems much less plausible. What's wrong with sun drives temperature?

One Planet, I don't get your point about Curry's reviewer. Surely we can agree that his or her comment was extraordinary, and showed dishonest thinking? Curry's other reviewers may have been good and rational, but one at least was not. Of course she could have made that comment up – but I have no reason to believe that. It seems more likely that she is sincere because she has put her career on the line.

None of this means that the “consensus view” is wrong. But it makes it very difficult to know who we should listen to.

There is no consensus

PatrickSS at 05:58 AM on 18 December, 2019

Thx so much for your replies.

It’s incredibly unfortunate that climate science has become political – on both sides IMO.

Actually I don’t feel that any of you have really engaged with my main argument: does this page give a fair summary of scientists’ views? E.g. does sticking up the percentage “91%” give a fair summary of Vergehhen’s data? (Obviously not.)

Science is IMO very subject to fashions. When authors, reviewers and the people who award grants all have the same point of view it can all go wrong. E.g. a few years ago almost everyone believed that fat in the diet was a kind of poison – which we now know is nonsense.

What I notice is that most scientists who are contrarians are either old and retired, or else somehow supporting themselves on private means or as consultants. That doesn’t seem like a good situation. It could mean that only crazy old men and women believe this nonsense, or it could mean that young climate scientists would damage their careers if they expressed contrarian views. MA Roger @857, I've listened to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen and William Happer on youtube and none of them seem crazy, they seem to be good scientists. Judith Curry said that she couldn’t get her work published. I’ve just checked what she said – in fact she did publish one reviewer’s comment:

“Overall, there is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate or sea-level science. Hence, I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the scientific debate on climate and sea-level science.”

Hmm. That’s definitely a very dangerous argument. In fact it's very worrying indeed.

Scaddemp, most lukewarmers that I've listened to (including Judith C and Matt Ridley) definitely want to protect the environment, and they propose the expansion of research into new energy systems, but they worry about taking it to an extreme.

But . . . . although the process looks bad, there could be a real problem here. I find it incredibly hard to know. Unfoortunately we all have this thing called confirmation bias, and that makes everything tricky.

Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well

Eclectic at 17:52 PM on 2 December, 2019

Nyood,

to add to Philippe's and Nigelj's comments, I shall yet again be rather tiresome to readers, in once again pointing out your major errors.

Lindzen and Curry are intellectual failures. And it must be very sad (for any true skeptic) that you are forced into the corner of admitting they are "the best" of the opposition to mainstream science.

Dr Curry is a minimizer who goes outside of scientific truthfulness, in order to give her uncritical followers the impression that hardly any global warming is the result of the Greenhouse effect. She creates a cloud of confused ideas ~ rather like the way a squid creates a cloud of ink to conceal things.

Prof Lindzen was a scientific force in the 1980's , but in the past decades his (initially reasonable) Iris Hypothesis has proven to be wrong, and his future projections of global surface temperature have proven to be very wrong. Worse still , he seems to have fallen into a religious belief that Jehovah would not permit the Earth to warm by more than a fraction of 1 degree. Quite unscientific.

Please note that I am not saying Lindzen and Curry are unintelligent or legally insane. The question of their intellectual sanity is arguable.

Nyood , it must be disappointing for you, that you cannot suggest anyone 'better' than Lindzen or Curry. Nor am I aware of any 'better' contrarians, capable of providing even a small amount of evidence to challenge the mainstream science.

And I will not bother to detail all the falseness of your ideas about the Hockeystick. It is one more area where you seem very reluctant to educate yourself ~ likewise with Climategate !

Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well

nigelj at 16:40 PM on 2 December, 2019

nyood @56

"you accept the political behaviour by the "11" as legit and only consequent. "

Virtually all organisations have their office politics. I accept this isn't always a great thing, but the problem for me is you are not providing convincing evidence that the scientists in question have done anything significantly wrong. You are not being objective.

"In the end the IPCC is not researching itself but only analyzing and interpreting and they have a clear mandate, so even the egomaniac behaviour of M.Mann can be excused, he is only doing his job."

The only mandate is the IPCC have to review the science and see where it leads. You have provided no evidence otherwise. Careful you dont slander people. Real sceptics are clear about what they mean by 'mandate'

"It is just not fair, the IPCC is mising an organ that tries to falsify itself, here you will claim that they do that carefully, I will say: This is up to the skeptics that are cornered, shamed and excluded and people like Lindzen or Curry are no lunatics, just to name the best.

Its a interesting point you make and I agree we need sceptical points of view, but that does not mean I have to agree with what the sceptics say, and it does not mean its ok for a scientific journal to have a board completely dominated by sceptics and Mann was justified in being annoyed by this, and scientists were justified by being annoyed by the Soon / Balinaus paper as pointed out by PC above. You have to see things in context. This was one paper and scientists haven't taken the same stance over all sceptics papers. If they had, their might be cause for genuine concern.

"Sceptics cornered shamed and excluded?"

This is a wild exaggeration. Please note the IPCC goes out of its way to include sceptics in its review teams, eg Dr Vincent Grey. Please note the official investigations of climategate went out of their way to include sceptics. Please note that the scepetics have dozens of journals they can publish in, and they keep telling us how much research they publish.

Some sceptics deserve to be shamed: I have quoted a few examples such as Moncton and Soon, but you refuse to engage and discuss.

"9 separate investigations have completely exonerated all scientists of all charges"

"This might be true, at the same time they were scolding the "11" for a lack of ingenuousness and transparency"

There is no might be true about it. It is true.

"The "Hockestick" that you use in the OP is an audacity and always will be."

This is a composite of multiple detailed studies of the MPW. Not sure what more you would expect. How many studies would be enough for you?

Calling it an audacity doesn't make it an audacity. Perhaps it doesn't tell you want you want to see, so you throw mud at it.

"This is the political thinYou know this. You know that warming periods are missing. "

All I know is all the studies of the MPW I have seen show it was weak and I've seen dozens of studies. I have no particular reason to doubt their veracity. Manns analysis was criticised for some bad statstics or something but the shape of his graph has been replicated over and over by other scientists using different methods. Thats good enough for me. Why would that not satisfy you?

You sound like you are just angry that the science doesn't match how you want it to be, for whatever reason.

Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well

Philippe Chantreau at 15:57 PM on 2 December, 2019

I can only infer from your response that you condone the pitiful Soon/Baliunas piece and associated perversion of peer-review as "acceptable" scientific behavior. So be it then.

The IPCC compiles scientific research, published in scientific journals. Its goal is to identify where the weight of the evidence points. If Curry or Lindzen have insights to share, they need to hack it out in the literature, like everyone else.

Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well

nyood at 14:35 PM on 2 December, 2019

@nigelj, Philippe Chantreau. Comments 53, 55.

Thanks for all the detailed replies, i can see where you are coming from and that you accept the political behaviour by the "11" as legit and only consequent. I can not change this view, only express that it does not go along with my understanding of scientific behaviour.

In the end the IPCC is not researching itself but only analyzing and interpreting and they have a clear mandate, so even the egomaniac behaviour of M.Mann can be excused, he is only doing his job.

It is just not fair, the IPCC is mising an organ that tries to falsify itself, here you will claim that they do that carefully, I will say: This is up to the skeptics that are cornered, shamed and excluded and people like Lindzen or Curry are no lunatics, just to name the best.

To the moderators reponse which i want to shorten with:

"9 separate investigations have completely exonerated all scientists of all charges"

This might be true, at the same time they were scolding the "11" for a lack of ingenuousness and transparency.

Since i am called upon to read the OP again i want to conclude with a final note and then i will stop bothering you:

The "Hockestick" that you use in the OP is an audacity and always will be.

You know this. You know that warming periods are missing. You are aware of that it is targeting the public and media that do not know better.

It is the very manipulative method that you accuse the skeptics of.

This is the political thinking and acting i am talking of.

Harnessing gamification to defeat climate misinformation

Doug_C at 17:02 PM on 28 November, 2019

nigelj I think so, there is very little in the way of emotional intelligence being applied to climate denial. Ironically it depends on a hostile emotional reaction on the part of the target audience of the denial campaign. They have to be motivated to oppose any policies that may impact the financial interests of the people and companies central to this.

There's no question that this decades long campaign of denial of basic reality itself has been highly effective and understands the weaknesses in the scientific method. Which would follow because it was designed by some fairly well versed scientists like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer with others like Richard Lindzen picking up the ball later.

With virtually no concern at all for the catastrophic impacts that with business as usual will likely include mass extinction on Earth that could include us humans. Sociopathic behavior of a fundamental nature I'd say.

CO2 was higher in the past

Eclectic at 12:10 PM on 5 November, 2019

Nyood ,

continuing with my itemized points of post #90 and your itemized replies in post #92 (subsection) :-

(A) Your quote: <" ... can not apply CO2 with a clear value (uncertainty)">

Here, too much is lost in translation. You will need to make a re-translation of your idea into English, to achieve a meaningful statement. Secondly: "Saturation" is invalid, and "Lindzen" is (often) invalid.

(B) <"(B) same as (A)"> does not make sense as a reply.

(C) <"observational evidence support my theory today"> Yes, but only in part. The full picture of observational evidence (on CO2 greenhouse) renders your theory invalid [ungueltig].

(D) Geological evidence supports your theory only in part. The full picture of geological evidence renders your theory invalid.

Nyood ,

in my post #90 , the final and most important question (for you) was: "why do you choose to ignore evidence?" Note the word choose [waehlen].

You have not answered that question. Please do so, carefully and thoughtfully. It requires using insight [Einblick; Selbstverstaendnis].

CO2 was higher in the past

nyood at 05:28 AM on 5 November, 2019

"(1) The total climate forcing from 6000ppm CO2 is very roughly 40Wm^-2. There is no evidence
to suggest that climate was impacted by such forcings (from any source) during the Ordovician."

(1) The first sentence is axiomaticly using an estimated forcing of CO2 and therefore is a statement, though the consequences you state are true (none).
I state that CO2 forcing is max 1°C, reaching saturation with roughly PAL levels, pretty much always or already.

The Second sentence is true, the forcings that Do determine climate Temperature (T) are the two equilibrium forces
hothouse effect (HHE) and high landmass ratio within polar circles (LPC).
The faint sun paradox (FSP) underlines the strength and dominance of the terrestial forcings by allowing
the orrdovician-silurian events, HHE - LPC - HHE, to happen within the same T amplitude of all compareable HHE and LPC events untill today.
Neglecting CO2 and reducing the FPS or -4% TPI, in its forcings.

On top of that you devaluate some of your own arguments brought up in the coming sections. According to (1) you do not allow yourself any comparison from there on.

"(2) According to your cited reference (slides 11 & 14), the period with elevated CO2 significantly above 4000ppm
coincides with the Katian, a period of warming."

(2)This sentence has no expressiveness. HHE is happening anyways before and after the LPC.
The Katian documents the late transition state towards an LPC, in fact it doubts CO2 as a driver.
The discrepancy between assumed CO2 forcing and T is underlined by the general high CO2 level in the atmosphere, the planet will reach a glaciation from here on, to develop extreme ice shields despite CO2 levels this high. The FPS is solved as mentioned.
Furthermore forces mentioned in the Schwarck study explain the Katian warming already:
" Bodaevent:
Continental Flood Basalt Province.Alternatively to a bolide impact, LIPs have been postulated as warming triggers."

The forcing here that matters is Ice albedo reduction due to dust and ashes.
We can see this again when younger impacts and events causie warming rather then cooling.
An accumulation of dust and ashes at the poles are the result of a rather quickly cleanse of the atmosphere.

"(3) The period following the Katian sees falling CO2 and falling temperature.
The period of high glaciation during the Himantian sees CO2 estimates
dropping to perhaps 1500ppm. Relative to our recent ice ages with 180ppm CO2,
the Himantian CO2 forcing would thus be perhaps +11Wm^-2 while the relative solar forcing would be -8Wm^-2."

(3) "dropping to perhaps 1500ppm". The Schwarck study claims PAL up to x6 till x20. Please specify "perhaps"
and clarify why it is not PAL but minimum PAL x3 according to you. Where are Schwank et.al wrong ?

Reminding here that the level of CO2 does not matter in the first place unless it is below PAL (max -1°C), using my axioms.

Again you apply axiomatical values, which are not needed to explain temperatures, you are still using the FSP as a theory support, or to bring it in an equilibrium with
CO2 forcing, by trying to "ramp up" CO2 to a minimum of 1500ppm. Ironically this opposites many attempts
that try to lower CO2 to explain why a glaciation happens, despite ~6000ppm before and after the glaciation, in the first place. These views higlight the needs to explain CO2 forcings as assumed (too high).

"(4) Your assertion @89 is that the major forcing of climate is the tectonic positioning of land over polar regions.
Yet there was such land over polar regions throughout the Ordovician when these great swings of climate appear suggesting
the climate was being forced by entirely different mechnisms.

I would therefore suggest you have failed to provide any support for your assertion "CO2 is no driver at all." "

(4)This is partly true, as strong as it is the Ice has to build up, which happens very quickly in the hirnation, after the Bodaevent.
The middle to late ordovician is in transition, the continental drift towards the pole is remarkable.
Which is documented with the Silurian:

Ordovizium

Silur

Furthermore one has to take in account the varying lengths of time periods. The ordovician has been added historicaly,
it was included in the silurian before, therefore this interesting periods are "staunched".

Antarctica shows a trend towards having a "drop back" to the south pole, mentioned in the devonian and possible in the jurassic.
Maybe this happened here too and we need more accurate paleogeorgraphic data.

Answering two other comments here made by other users:

89.Moderator response:

"[PS] This is heading way into sloganeering territory. You are selecting only observations that support your ideas and ignoring completely all others. Science does not operate that like.
You cannot ignore measured increase in downwelling radiation, conservation of energy, nor explain past climate change with hand-wavy statements that violate physics.
If you have a theory that can match all observations, simpler and with better precision than current theory and concordant with laws of physics then by all means publish. Meanwhile,
current climate theory is the one that matches Occams razor. No more half-baked sophistry please."

My theory already has a better explanation with its radical attempt, that is the whole point. This is not "sloganeering" it is just a very radical attempt so it asks for situations where we have evidence that show CO2 as a significant driver, relating to topic.
I understand that my radical attempt makes it easy for me but i have to insist on the fairness that i am allowed to show that radical assumptions that i made, make more sense then your axiomatical assumptions.
There is the inherit problem that we eventualy go off topic but i have to ask you at this point which laws and forcings (radiation, energy conservation) are ignored by me in which way ?
I ignore factors as far as they allow me, hence ockham.
I insinuate that your axioms make less sence then mine. Your critisicsm lacks precission at this stage, when it comes to why my radical assumptions are not allowed and where they are not concordant with laws of physics.

90. Eclectic:

"Nyood, the importance of CO2 as a driver of climate, is supported by (A) theoretical calculations [Arrhenius and later scientists]; is supported by (B) experimental evidence; is supported by
(C) observational evidence; and is supported by (D) geological evidence. In other words, the mainstream science developed during the past 200 years.

The principle of Occam's Razor is a often a helpful guide to thinking : it is not in itself evidence and it is not in itself a method of proof.

Ockham (or Occam) did not support the cutting off or ignoring of evidence. Newton and Einstein did not ignore evidence. Nyood, why do you choose to ignore evidence?"

(A) Arrhenius,Planck Feldmann et.al give a frame, it is known that we can not apply CO2 with a clear value (uncertainty). This leads to a Saturation and or Lindzen et.al and therefore inevitable offtopic, as much as i am willing to discuss it.

(B) same as (A)

(C) I clame that observational evidence support my theory today: Dramatic CO2 increase with a moderate warming trend. My initial post was rightfully snipped of modern time references as offtopic.

(D) Geological evidence is the core of the LPC theory.

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 20:18 PM on 9 October, 2019

CThompson ,

insight is not your strong suit, apparently. Your claim of familiarity with carbon isotopes etcetera, is not congruous with your dismissal of mainstream physics & biology.

Just as (by analogy) someone who claims familiarity with mathematics . . . yet who alleges that 2+2=3 . . . is someone who is a tad less expert than he supposes.

But perhaps, CThompson, you can achieve some credibility by staying on topic. [Short musical interlude here, while orchestra plays Pride of Erin B . . . and readers wait for you to also mention Galileo, as well.] You have been repeatedly asked to say something substantive about the scientific consensus, to back your "beliefs". But you have produced nothing, so far.

A good start would be, if you can name a list of some credible scientists who have produced some evidence that the mainstream science is seriously incorrect. (And you must show what that evidence is ~ not just handwave at something unspecified.) If at all possible, please list a sufficiency of names to demonstrate that these alleged contrarians exist in numbers way beyond 1% of climate scientists. Would 20% "climate-skeptical" genuine climate scientists be achievable for you? Otherwise, surely your consensus claim falls flat on its face.

Hint: don't bother to use the delusional citizen-scientist crackpots, such as Lord Monckton, Dr Tim Ball, or (the late) John Coleman . . . 'cos they ain't no scientists !

And bear in mind, that the evidence is even more important than the exact percentage of contrarians. And that is where the contrarian scientists make a double Fail ~ their numbers are shrinking and their hypotheses [cosmic rays; 100-year oceanic cycles; Lindzen's "Iris" ; etcetera] have failed the reality test.

CThompson, the consensus exists because the evidence is clear.

I can see that you believe what you want to believe ~ and I was never under the illusion that you would be convinced by anything factual.

BTW, CThompson, you can educate me on one point ~ what is the meaning of the word "symmantic" which you use so often e.g. the "symmantic gymnastics" you mention in your last paragraph of #841 . The OED failed to list the word. Is it a new term for the latest display trick by that amazing young gymnast Ms Simone Biles ?

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 15:09 PM on 30 September, 2019

Errata @830 ,

no, those "500 scientists" are not fully 100% wrong. But if they were an aeroplane . . . then they'd be so far from flightworthy, that no engineer would let them out of the hangar ~ for fear that they'd crash just moving along the taxiing strip.

In less humorous terms: the "500" letter is so error riddled, that it would take a large number of paragraphs to detail it all. Not just errors, but deceptive rhetoric.

Politics :- as of those extremists who think that all the world's scientists are in a century-long plot/conspiracy to impose a communist world government, and are faking all the data to that end.

Religion :- as of those extremists who think that the Christian Deity is/will step in to correct any significant global warming. And Prof Lindzen who takes an [Old Testament] view that Jehovah won't allow more than slight warming (at least, that was his view during a 2006? interview with a sympathetic interviewer ~ and I haven't detected any change since.)

All these guys are intelligent (though the vast majority do not research or publish in the climate field) and all are so strongly influenced by Motivated Reasoning (political/religious) that they end up producing nonsense.

Errata, if you are not inclined to some hours of heavy reading at websites like NASA, AAAS, U.K. Royal Society, etc . . . . then you might enjoy some youtube videos by Potholer54 (science journalist) on climate matters. He debunks a lot of the common myths which have been circulating.

Potholer54 is polite & amusing [ how refreshing ! ].

You will be especially amused by his 5 short videos exposing the "Monckton Bunkum" mendacities of Lord Monckton (who is a sort of pop star among denialists . . . denialists who fawn on him, especially at WattsUpWithThat website.)

The partisan "Green New Deal" is just local American politics, and is not a consequence (or reflection) of genuine climate science. Best to first understand real climate science: and only then give thought to remediation of the AGW situation.

Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders

LFC at 07:41 AM on 26 September, 2019

Impressive letter coming from 500 "scientists"! There are 14 "ambassadors" signing the letter so let's have a look. Richard Lindzen? OK, he's a scientist though of course one that has been wrong repeatedly. Now HERE's a name that stands out; "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom". Yes indeed, the bug-eyed man who is literally nuts is one of their "ambassadors." That's more than enough for me to dismiss the entire thing without even attempting an analysis.

Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders

MA Rodger at 22:02 PM on 12 September, 2019

The OP suggests this silly denialist letter to the EU "represents the best case that climate deniers can make against the existence of a climate crisis." I feel that needs some qualification as it is a small set of denialists who came up with the silly five point 'oh-no-it's-not' rebuttal.

At the end of January we hear of a large number of academics writing to the Belgian "federal and regional governments." I cannot see the actual letter sent but it did result in swivel-eyed denialists from the Netherlands responding with a point-by-point counter-argument which was quickly translated for the English-speaking deniosphere.

(The authorship of the denial is given as the Climate Intelligence Foundation which is described as "a new Foundation that is funded by worried wealthy citizens. The Foundation focuses on independent public information. She does that by telling the entire climate story." somewhat similar to the nonsense spouted by the UK's GWPF who make out they are an educational charity (& thus trouser taxpayers money to fund their lies). The odd thing with this authorship for an OP posted 1st Feb 2019 is the Climate Intelligence Foundation (soon gaining the name CLINTEL) was not started until the end of March 2019, according to one of its co-founders. who says in this video that it will be set up "tomorrow" with the launch seemingly a couple of days later.)

The point-by-point counter-argument of early Feb runs to seven points. The first five of these present identical argument to the silly denialist letter, although the letter has hardened the message a bit. The first five Feb points were - (1) Climate has always changed with warming from 1850, (2) Calling recent warming 100% anthropogenic is unscientific, (3) There is no discernable trends in floods & droughts & plagues of frogs, (4) Models are hypersensitive to CO2 so any warming CO2 causes will be mild and nature can cool as well as warm. (5) The cost to Belgium & Holland of AGW mitigation is massive for "negligible and immeasurable" gain.

(These five from February are pretty-much the same as the five in the silly denialist letter of August. The February version adds (6) AGW mitigation is not more cost-effective than doing nothing, (7) They mix up a clean environment, which all agree with, with AGW mitigation.)

So the grand denialist message is no more than a knee-jerk response to a letter from Belgian academics supporting stronger action on AGW. That it has folk like Richard Lindzen signing-up to it when he disagrees with parts of it is presumably more a mark of solidarity than a mark of wholehearted agreement.

Millions of times later, 97 percent climate consensus still faces denial

MA Rodger at 20:37 PM on 20 August, 2019

Doug_C @21/22 & @25.
I think we are mainly talking past each other here. Perhaps to complete the trade of AGW 'credentials', I have been bashing on about the need to reduce our GHG emissions for only 38% of my life-to-date. I very quickly learnt that such a message is not something that easily yields meaningful results.

We agree that the scientific uncertainty within the subject is not the uncertainty wielded by denialists, although they will happily add it to their own accumulated pile of uncertainties. We agree there is no doubt that the scientific consensus dictates the need to quickly reduce GHG emissions to zero. And we seem to agree that the 3% non-consensus is today entirely non-scientific.

You do react to my assertion that there is scientifically a "looney fringe" that happily exaggerates AGW and which matches that denialist 3%. It is not as prominent as the 3% and it isn't so detatched from the science as the 3%. (And there are those non-scientific voices that exaggerate AGW even further.) Such exaggeration is often wielded by denialists as reason to ignore the science.
[Strangely there has been warning from denier Richard Lindzen that the most basic non-scientific denialist argument is damaging to his denialism (He says you couldn't hire folk to do a better job - see from 12:00 in this 2012 talk in the Palace of Westminster.) but such mud doesn't seem to stick to denialists as it does to AGW.]

One point I would take serious issue with.
You consider "even a 5% chance we are facing a global crisis of this magnitude it should result in immediate action.[my bold]" Yet I fully understand why, within the political sphere, that would not happen. The big problem is not the '5%' (which of course is actually a lot higher, not significantly different to 100%). The big problems are threefold - (1) the timing of the "global crisis" in the future way beyond any political planning horizons (with the exception of SLR on building requirements). (2) the far-reaching actions required by that "immediate action." (3) and what can be called 'institutional denialism' - your Trans Mountain pipeline provides a good example of the lunacy that can ensue. Unless the message sweeps the institution, the counter message of 'continue-on-as-before' will have great strength and will tend to regain its prior position. So bye-bye message.

I will continue to object to use of the word "existential" without qualification. And the extinction of species and habitats is surely not such a qualification. (Note that denialists will counter by saying that the present sixth great extinction event isn't all down to AGW. And there are more powerful arguments that they fail to harness.)

Finally, I'm reluctant to drag Quantum Mechanics into this interchange as it is certainly not of primary consideration. Yes QM does provide the "understanding" of the physics but the impact of the physics is measureable without it, perhaps this epitomised by black body radiation being the evidence that led to identifying QM and its probabalistic physics.

@25 - "How do you reason with people who have strayed so far from rational thought?" Reason may have flown out of their window but do we give them a free pass to spread their nonsense? If you can make their arguments look ridiculous it will perhaps chip away at their denialism and it will surely dissuade onlookers from believing it.

Millions of times later, 97 percent climate consensus still faces denial

MA Rodger at 00:40 AM on 20 August, 2019

Doug_C @19,

I rather disagree with your comment or at least feel it sould be better explained.

There are certainly differing qualities of work that comprise denialism. There is a large protion of that denialist work that is incompatable with very basic science. (I'm not sure that your mention of Quantum Mechanics is entirely correct or helpful to your assessment.) There is also a large protion of that denialist work that is incompatable with scientific data and thus contrdicts the resulting inferences that can be established by that data. None of this is a great distance from your comment.

What I don't see is any remaining denialist work that is properly supported by evidence. The entirety of the 3% sitting beyond the 'consensus' is surely incompatable with the scientific data and it is actually not a proper constituent part of the science.

What I particularly feel is a step too far is suggesting that:-

"The few percents of research that show doubt are simply there as part of the uncertainty that is inherent in science, it may as well be stated in terms of a 100% consensus when it comes to evidence driving policy on global warming."

This statement is saying that there exists "uncertainty ... inherent in (the) science" which is exactly the denialist message. The likes of, say, Richard Lindzen or Judith Curry who constitute the 3% outside the 'consensus' will argue that there is enough uncertainty to infer that Climate Sensitivity is low and thus AGW will not be a problem.

Now, we can see that Lindzen with his cloud iris theorising or Curry with her large natural climate wobbles are part of the scientific process. But the doubt they may have sown scientifically is long dispelled. What we are left with is the likes of Lindzen & Curry continuing to spread their now-unscientific message to policymakers as though it was legitimate science. It is unscientific to represent these messages as scientific and their messages ar become part of the "finely tuned stream of disinformation" (although the "tuning" may not be a conscious process on their part).

And masquerading as legitimate science, their message can then be presented as though it had the same scientific standing as the IPCC Assessment Reports rather than a loony fringe opinion, indeed one balanced by those who grossly exaggerate AGW.

I note you use the word "existential" without making plain to what it applies - ie what it is that has its existence threatened by AGW. I would suggest that it is but that loony fringe (that is balanced by the denialist looney fringe) that describes AGW as an existential threat to the human race when AGW is surely only an existential threat to the world economy whose collapse would not be a pretty sight and likely reduce human populations to a fraction of today's total.

Climate's changed before

MA Rodger at 22:56 PM on 30 July, 2019

TVC15 @770,
Well, let that be a lesson for you!!
Denialism isn't logical. It turns folk into swivel-eyed loons.

To correct his nonsense-
♣ It was 3 million years ago (not 2) that North & South America collided and joined up, a process that did kick off the Arctic glaciation which then resulted in c3 million years of ice ages. And over tha last 1 million years the ice ages were significantly bigger. Presumably the present warming that is bringing this 3-million-year-period to an end can be blamed on the collision of the USSR and the Republic of China with the United States of America, these all constituting significantly large land masses.
♣ You probaly could argue the Arctic was ice-free 100,000 years ago but only through the peak of the summer melt season (as in the Arctic Ocean having the levels of summer ice we would declare today to be ice-free).
♣ 15,000 years ago we were still coming out of the last ice age. We were out nearer 10,000 years ago (as the graphed ice core data clearly shows).
Ice Core Temperatures
♣ The extreme global temperature changes since the Last Glacial Maximum were nothing like "10-15 degrees C" except at a regional level (ie Greenland). And the period over which these increases occurred (the data graphed shows two large sudden Greenland increases in the last 20,000 years - +12ºC at 14.5kybp & +9ºC at 11.5kypb - which were not 10-year periods of increase but 200-year periods. I don't think the ice cap volumes exist in the northern hemisphere to achieve a repeat performance today.
♣ The relative temperature of different interglacials has been discussed in this thread before and so we know the swivel-eyed loon is having difficulty hearing this particular message. So, yes, we do think he is "just being crazy" and that craziness is why he has such difficulty accepting the science and its implications.
♣ With regard to emisions controls, we can, of course, treat all people on Earth equally as the denialist wishes. The science says that anthropogenic CO2 emissions of more than 700Gt(C) will be bad and with 7.7 billion folk living on the planet, that would be an allowance of 91t(C) per head(historical) ('historical' as your allowance-use is handed down from previous generations).
So let's calculate that allowance using Global Carbon Project figures and present-day population. Note these GCP territorial emission data only go back to 1959. Getting full historical figures would be possible (& correcting for increasing population could be factored in) but the general result will not change. That would mean that China still had an outstanding carbon allowance of 54t(C) per head, India 82t(C)/head while the good old USA has exceded its allowance and so has to pay back 238t(C)/head into the collective kitty. If full historical emissions were included, the US pay-back would be greater still, not qute as great as the UK pay-back if taken to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (From 1959 the UK pay-back is a trifling 47t(C)/head). Luxembourg from 1959 has a pay-bacl 0f 199t(C)/head but would be the country facing the biggest carbon-emissions pay-back with full historic figures.

Denial is a sad thing to behold. Denialist folk become happy to dismiss the evidence witout any assessment of what they are ignoring. It is simply done. "The IPCC assessment reports? A complete pack of lies!!"
More telling is the misuse of the remiaining information that you do accept. As you are ignoring whole swathes of actual data, your sources tend to be limited and adjusting the findings beyond that limited evidence becomes a necessity. So some, no all previous ice ages were warmer, golly, 10 degrees warmer, 20, 100 degrees warmer. We should be grateful we live now and not then!!!!
And how does the following rate on the scale of untruthfulness given it comes from a real climatologist, abet a retired one. It's from Lindzen's seminar at the UK House of Commons in 2012. (@ 32.20mins in the first videoed part of his talk linked here. (You-tube link here)

"Does it [20th century temperature increase] matter?"
"Okay so some points to take away from the global mean temperature anomaly record. Changes are small. They are in the order of several tenths of a degree. Changes are not causal but rather the residue of regional changes. Changes in the order of several tenths of a degree are always present at virtually all time-scales. And obsessing on the details of this record is more akin to a spectator sport or tea-leaf reading than a serious contributor to scientific efforts."
"Say, at least so far. I mean if some day I shoud see the changes are twenty times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable but nothing so far looks that way."

The implication is that we have here a retired climatologist who considers a gobal average temperature increase of less than (0.7 x 20=) 14ºC to be unremarkable. Are we then supposed to take such a retired climatologist as a serious authority on climate?

What perhaps we cannot judge is how much a denier knows he is misrepresenting the data he presents, that he is effectively lying. I suppose gross exageration can be justified because the denialist message is to them the correct message and, and denialists don't have the resources to counter all the lies that you climate alarmists generate with all your fake IPCC science.

Skeptical Science New Climate Research for Week #26, 2019

KR at 11:08 AM on 5 July, 2019

campcarl - According to the abstract of that paper, they:

...investigate how introducing a potential iris feedback, the cloud-climate feedback introduced by parameterizing Cp to increase with surface temperature, affects future climate simulations within a slab-ocean configuration of the Community Earth System Model...

So they are running simulations with a postulated but unsupported iris feedback, a mechanism postulated by Lindzen many years ago in a series of debunked papers, and seeing how that affects a simplistic climate model.

I really don't see how that's particularly newsworthy.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

DPiepgrass at 17:07 PM on 14 June, 2019

Michael sweet, Abbott 2011 is an opinion piece, not a study, and while Abbott is clearly intelligent, so is climate science denier Richard Lindzen, who has "published more than 200 scientific papers and books".

Nuclear issues are clearly not Abbott's main academic focus. He has made claims that are obviously unreasonable, and when such claims are not backed by citations, I see no reason to give them as much weight as the information I've seen in technical presentations by, say, Jesse Jenkins, expert in energy systems, or Dr. Brian Sheron, former Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, or MSR engineers such as Kirk Sorensen or Ian Scott, or even this discussion of how radioactivity decreases over time in HLW. While fair and reliable sources are hard to find, I've been around the block enough times to know roughly what's what.

Anyway, I'll certainly share what I've been able to find from the scientific literature on nuclear issues. Chiefly:

On Radiation Risk

The main disease caused by radiation is non-CLL leukemia (in some cases there are other risks, e.g. radioactive iodine can cause thyroid cancer.) Here is a "meta-analysis of leukemia risk from protracted exposure to low-dose gamma radiation". It concluded, based on 23 other studies, that the excess relative risk (ERR) of non-CLL leukemia from 100 mGy of radiation is roughly 19% (it is unclear to me if 100 mGy is different from 100 mSv). Based on a typical non-CLL leukemia rate of 10 cases per 100,000 people per year, ERR=0.19 would increase this by roughly 1.9 cases per year (1 in 53,000 people). The risk varies as a function of time since exposure, but this particular study seemed to completely ignore the issue. If one assumes ERR=0.19 every year for 25 years after exposure, the chance of cancer from exposure to 100 mGy would be about 0.05%. "25 years" is a guess on my part, so if you can find any study that quantifies the risk more clearly as a "1-in-X chance" or as a loss of DALYs, I'd love to see it! For reference, the natural environment gives an average radiation dose around 2.4 mSv per year (Hendry et al 2009 citing UNSCEAR), though I've heard urban environments tend to block some of this. The Canadian NSC limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv over 5 years.

Waddington et al 2017 concluded that "relocation was unjustified for the 160,000 people relocated after Fukushima," since the radiation dose most residents would have received (after returning from a brief evacuation period) was quite small and the loss of life expectancy was 3 months. The paper notes that

No radiation deaths occurred during or following the accident, however there were a number of deaths directly attributed to the relocation and subsequent relocation of the Fukushima population. Hasegawa et al. (2015) summarise that “After the accident, mortality among relocated elderly people needing nursing care increased by about three times in the first 3 months after relocation and remained about 1·5 times higher than before the accident.”

It also says "Relocation was unjustified for 75% of the 335,000 people relocated after Chernobyl."

It is considered unlikely that cases of thyroid cancer in children have increased around Fukushima due to radiation (Suzuki 2016) as most I-131 disappears within weeks of an accident.

See also the EPA's Q&A for Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies.

Various sources mention that uncertainties remain regarding the risk of low doses of radiation. UNSCLEAR recommends, for example, that

Increases in the incidence of health effects cannot be attributed reliably to chronic exposure to radiation at levels that are typical of the global average background levels of radiation.
The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.
Increases in the incidence of hereditary effects among the human population cannot be attributed to radiation exposure.

I would submit that the reason for this uncertainty, despite much study, is that the effects are just too small to measure precisely.

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 11:52 AM on 27 May, 2019

JoeZ @801 ,

Yes, there are "scientists who aren't part of the consensus" ~ but there are hardly any climate scientists who would fit in that category. That is why the Consensus is only 99+% , not absolutely 100% . Far worse for your unstated position, JoeZ, those very few scientists had all produced hypotheses which have been thoroughly disproven (see Svensmark, Lindzen) . . . and worse again, they contain a high percentage of religious crackpots who are not strictly scientific in their mode of thinking.

Are they "stupid"? Well, stupid is a rather elastic term. I myself know a fellow who has a PhD and spent decades in scientific research [but not in climate-related matters] and yet he is a member of the local Flat Earth Society. Unsurprisingly, he is also in denial about global warming.

Is he stupid? He is pleasant, sociable, and intelligent ~ but that doesn't stop him from being quite wrong about important issues. Just like Lindzen & his comrades who are over-influenced by irrational religious beliefs or extremist political beliefs. They put their ego ahead of scientific thinking.

Also rather like your Mr Alex Epstein (who is an author, not a philosopher) who chooses to write a book, not submitting his ideas to the point-by-point criticism which would occur in the process of peer-review in a scientific paper. JoeZ, it is easy to write a book and have your unbalanced rhetoric sweep your ill-informed readers into a state of intellectual submission & adulation . . . just as it is easy to make a "documentary" film about a subject [ here, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" comes to mind ] where severely-doctored graphs and fallacious logic are employed. The general reading/viewing public are not to know how fake it all is, unless they take the trouble to apply critical thinking and to educate themselves on the basics of the issue.

In the end, JoeZ , it all comes down to evidence. And evidence is the thing lacking in the positions taken by those "non-consensus" scientists. The climate consensus exists because of the climate evidence.

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 01:10 AM on 26 April, 2019

Pl @785 ,

1. The original "attractor" theory (held up until the 1930's) was that the Earth's climate was self-correcting i.e. homeostatic within narrow limits. But that was disproven, as experimental & observational & paleo-climatic evidence mounted up. Satellite-based evidence has re-inforced that, too.

2. "Peer influence" is not a problem ~ because genuine scientists have a natural tendency to be contrarian & genuinely skeptical.

The consensus is pretty much unanimous for climatologists, because nowadays (unlike 50 or 100 years ago) the evidence for "CO2/AGW" is conclusive. There are no longer any "alternative theories" that hold any validity ~ the plausible alternative have been disproven (e.g. GW from variation in cosmic ray intensity; homeostatic cloud formation as an "Iris Effect"; long-cycle ocean current effects).

If you take time to learn more about the mechanisms influencing global climate, you will recognize that the (mere handful of) "dissenting" climatologists are offering only empty dissent . . . because they have nothing valid to back up their dissent. They are just running on automatic . . . such as the well-known retired Professor Lindzen, who has an Old Testament religious belief that the Earth has been designed to remain close to the Garden of Eden climate status. A few others suffer from extremist political beliefs, motivating them to cherry-pick / ignore the plain evidence.

Please note that the respected scientific journals welcome dissenting views provided that there is reasonable supportive evidence. (Journals and scientists gain prestige & fame by demonstrating valid contrarian evidence.)

But alas, every contrarian idea has failed the validity test, and there are extremely strong reasons why no "undiscovered" factor exists.

The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

Eclectic at 12:05 PM on 23 March, 2019

ThinkingMan , it's always worthwhile to step back occasionally and look at the bigger context.

Global surface temperature had been at a fairly flat plateau for (roughly) 5,000 years of the Holocene Maximum ~ which has been followed by (roughly) 5 or 6,000 years of gradual decline (related to the Milankovitch cycle of insolation). Owing to the present relatively-low ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, the next glacial phase is due in 20-30,000 years ~ and may be skipped altogether since the oceans are being unusually warmed by AGW.

The Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period etcetera are only tiny wiggles in comparison to the multi-millennial decline in temperature.

Against this long-term decline, you can see the last (roughly) 100 years demonstrates a temperature rise which is shooting upwards like a rocket. And is now surpassing the Holocene Maximum. IMO it is beyond ridiculous for denialists to assert that our modern-day global warming is the result of a 60-year oscillation in oceanic currents.

Yet that is what some of the (more intelligent) denialists assert. No need to waste your time reading Professor Curry's blog ~ she is still suggesting that "up to" 60% of modern warming could be caused by confluence of oceanic current cycles. Quite marvellous it is, how a giant dose of "Motivated Reasoning" can so completely distort the rational thinking of an educated intelligent person.

You see rather similar bizarre thinking coming from Lindzen & Spencer & others. (And much of the remainder of denialists are still loudly proclaiming that CO2 has zero or negligible Greenhouse effect.)

97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

Marathon at 06:30 AM on 21 February, 2019

Magma, The three deniers are John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer.

Climate's changed before

Eclectic at 16:46 PM on 16 December, 2018

Ed @ 621/622 ,

you don't really advance your case (whatever it is) by waving a rhetorical hand in the direction of Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and LeMaitre.

Copernicus and Galileo were (strictly speaking!) representing the scientific consensus of their age (an age of very few scientists, indeed). Their opponents (shall we label them denialists?) were a group of rich & powerful men (in the upper echelons of the Papal state) who supported an evidence-deficient position. Easy to see a parallel with the rich & powerful magnates of the upper echelons of the fossil fuel industry . . . plus c'est la meme chose. Even more irony, in that the modern-day Pope denounces those same science-deniers.

Einstein and LeMaitre advanced the physics/astrophysics science ~ but they did not trash the pre-existing body of science.

# Attacking the consensus scientific orthodoxy [especially in climate matters] ought to be done with humility [and genuine skepticism], lest you join the ranks of the Dunning-Krugerites.

"Uncertainty" about ECS (currently the most probable ECS figure being around 3 or 3.5 degrees) is an interesting scientific question ~ but in no way justifies delaying on decently fast transition to a nett-zero-emission economy. After all, we citizens/voters/politicians/parents ought to be intensely practical in prudent risk-managing.

My apologies, but my little laptop is struggling to access "figure 8.14 and 8.15 of AR4 WG1". Perhaps, Ed, you would be kind enough to upload those charts and explain how you think they undermine the mainstream position.

Strangely, the same goes for Dr Humlum's "climate4you" illustrations. (I have no difficulty accessing the WUWT and Climateetc websites.) On the little I know of Dr Humlum: he has (scientifically speaking) a poor track record indeed. * That is not to say he must therefore be wrong, on the cloudiness issue. But it seems the somewhat-related "Iris Hypothesis" of Prof Lindzen has fallen flat on its face. And on a second point: a "cloudiness drop" providing a warming forcing of "roughly 4 W/m^2" has much the same problem I mentioned above in post #619.D . . . that if true, then there must also be some Unknown Mysterious Cooling Factor that nicely follows/matches the rising arc of CO2's warming forcing effect. Which seems absurdly unlikely, if not quite impossible.

(And which would leave only another 5 impossible things to believe before breakfast.)

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

One Planet Only Forever at 01:35 AM on 24 November, 2018

There appears to be confusion due to incorrect conflating of:

Scientific consensus of understanding (development of an emergent truth that is open to correction if substantive new evidence is contrary to the developing understanding).
An individual's helpfulness in efforts to improve awareness and understanding: in the field of understanding, among leaders in society, among the general population.

Individuals are not 'part of the 97% or 3%'. The consensus measure is regarding how much of the 'literature that is a legitimate part of the effort to improve the understanding of an area/field of understanding' is aligned with a developing understanding. As the degree of alignment increases it can be understood that an emergent truth is being established (an understanding that is unlikely to be significantly altered by new investigation in that field of learning).

An evaluation of all of an individual's actions is the basis for determining how helpful they are to the improvement of the understanding and to the increased 'correct' awareness and understanding among leaders and the general population.

While the likes of Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen may have their names on a specific piece of literature that is included in the 97% side of the climate science consensus evaluation regarding the understanding that human activity is significantly impacting the global climate, that does not make them 'a part of the 97% side'.

Individual merit would be determined by their collective actions regarding the understanding. That evaluation would undeniably indicate that the likes of Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are very unhelpful (harmful) to the improvement of awareness and understanding the understanding that human activity is significantly (and negatively) impacting the global climate that future generations will suffer the consequences of and the challenge of trying to maintain perceptions of prosperity that are the result of a portion of humanity getting away with benefiting from the damaging unsustainable burning of fossil fuels (benefiting in ways that do not develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity - like perceptions of reduction of poverty that cannot be sustained if the damaging impact creation of fossil fuels is significantly and rapidly curtailed like it has to be in order to minimize the damage done to the future generations of humanity).

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

michael sweet at 00:28 AM on 24 November, 2018

Art Vandelay,

Richaed Lindzen cannot be considered part of the 97%. He has widely criticized the IPCC. The IPCC report is the basis of the 97% claim. He probably also claims to be part of the consensus to muddy the waters when he speaks.

Many deniers now claim to be part of the 97% to muddy the waters. The mainstream press allows themn to get away with it.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results