Top Gear host hits the wall on climate science

[Redmonton_Rebel]

This is an article on Richard Lindzen.. the 'Inconvenient Scientist' at MIT and one of few academics brave enough to question the appalling lack of integrity and scientific method in the AGW hoax. That is an IMPOSED orthodoxy which you breech at terminal risk to your career.

MIT's inconvenient scientist - The Boston Globe

Had he done this prior to receiving tenure, and a funded chair at MIT he would have been ostracized and cast out. Since publishing his penetrating criticisms of the Global Warming cult.. he has been subjected to lawsuits, slander and isolation.

American Universities are now in the grip of New Age Occultism.. anchored in extreme forms of environmentalism, feminism, especially in promotion of abortion and embryonic stem cell research, moral relativism, and radical individualism.. in the sciences, arts and social sciences.. all geared to a 'post-Christian' characterization of human kind as some kind of pestilence on the natural order of things. You don't get an EDUCATION at U.S. universities now, you get an INDOCTRINATION.

And guess who funds him.

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[8]

The guy has worked for OPEC and Western Fuels Association, it hardly makes him an objective source in this discussion.

nice rant btw, it's entertaining even if it does lack the most basic foundation in fact.

 

[coldstream]

The guy has worked for OPEC and Western Fuels Association, it hardly makes him an objective source in this discussion.

Guess who funds AGW.. WALL STREET.. which is now totally invested in speculative instruments.. including 'carbon credits'.. and currency 'futures'.. gambling on the economic fallout of AGW 'solutions'.

The benefit to the Oil Industry is MINISCULE compared to control of the industrial production of the world.. through imposing shortages and playing one country and region off against the other.. by 'managing' this fictional 'crisis'.

It dovetails perfectly into the passing control of the World Economy from nation states to that of the Global Investment Organism... all based on lies and fear mongering.. with a fully funded concoction of scientific and economic 'research'.. payed for by profiteers in the burgeoning 'climate' industry.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Guess who funds AGW.. WALL STREET.. which is now totally invested in speculative instruments.. including 'carbon credits'.. gambling on economic fall out of AGW 'solutions'. The benefit to the Oil Industry is MINISCULE compared to control of the industrial production of the world.. through imposing shortages and playing one country and region off against the other. It dovetails perfectly into the passing control of the World Economy from nation states to that of the Global Investment Organism... all based on lies and fear mongering.

Antrhopogenic global warming has been around for over a century, it's only become a political hot-button issue since it was realized we'd need to curtail CO2 emissions to avoid serious environmental change. And a lot of the most modern evidence supporting our role in changing the climate has come from governmental agencies like NASA and NOAA and universities and other research institutions. Wall Street on the other hand is firmly committed to maintaining the status quo that has made just a few people so rich usually at our expense. Where have you been for the last decade or so?

There's a reason most of the "science" behind climate change denial is funded by the same companies that would be negatively affected by mitigation efforts.

 

[coldstream]

And guess who funds him.

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch



The guy has worked for OPEC and Western Fuels Association, it hardly makes him an objective source in this discussion.

nice rant btw, it's entertaining even if it does lack the most basic foundation in fact.

I notice they always attack the messenger.. knowing that the do not have not a rational leg to stand on.. in terms of confronting his exposes of the sinister anti-scientific occultism that backs AGW.

This is an old trick.. If Lindzen wanted to secure his career, guarantee publishing.. he would tow the line with the AGW nonsense. He's got too much integrity for that.

Look how organized and well funded the concerted attacks on him are. They must have full time detective agencies trying to scare up dirt on him and others. Where does that money come from?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

I notice they always attack the messenger.. knowing that his opponents do not have not a rational leg to stand on.. in terms of confronting his exposes of the sinister anti-scientific occultism that backs AGW. This is an old trick.. If Lendzen wanted to secure his career, guarantee publishing.. he would tow the line with AGW nonsense. He's got too much integrity for that.

OPEC was paying him $2,500 a day, that integrity doesn't come cheap I guess.

Lindzen's "research" doesn't disprove anything, it's main intent like so much of the other stuff that's meant to lull us into a false sense of security is to confuse the issue, and has far more uncertainty to it than the well established evidence backing the contention of Anthropogenic global warming.

One man funded by the fossil fuel sector with little to no solid research to back up his claims of denial versus hundreds and even thousands of researchers who've built a very solid foundantion of evidence supporting climate change. I guess if you're prone to confuse fact with fiction then Richard Lindzen's work would appeal to you.

 

[L Gilbert]

and this has what to do with the OP...... you 2 want to bash Christianity, then start your own little thread and the 2 of you have at it.

aawww Po lil gerry got his panties in a knot cuz Coldslime mentioned religion and invited retorts.
Hugs po lil Gerry.

 

[coldstream]

One man funded by the fossil fuel sector with little to no solid research to back up his claims of denial versus hundreds and even thousands of researchers who've built a very solid foundantion of evidence supporting climate change. I guess if you're prone to confuse fact with fiction then Richard Lindzen's work would appeal to you.

You've got to kidding. The entire rotten structure of AGW has NEVER been about science or research. It is based totally and exlusively on RIGGED computer climate models.. that have NEVER been able to predict anything.

Ones that have never acknowledged that they have no idea what has caused climate epochs in the past. That fixates totally on one minute atmospheric element, in fact the infinitessimally small human contribution of that element.. as the overarching determinant of the most complex system in the world.. that of climate.. which they pretend to understand. And that just happens to be the most important element in the human industrial economy. Just chance they chose that.. so you say.

The dire warnings are continually revised as we see that none of doomsday scenarios are being realized. That's not science.. that is some kind of grotesque and viciously anti-human philosophy. It doesn't even pretend to be a 'science' except in name... it is what it has always been.. a 'religion' and a political agenda.. back up by selective and dishonest anecdotes.

 

[L Gilbert]

This is an article on Richard Lindzen.. the 'Inconvenient Scientist' at MIT and one of few academics brave enough to question the appalling lack of integrity and scientific method in the AGW hoax.

With all due respect to Lindzen, he's been shown to be wrong about a few things. But he is right about some of the crap that flies around the issue of AGW.
And if you claim AGW is a hoax, you should be able to at least provide evidence for the claim, But I know you can't and won't.

That is an IMPOSED orthodoxy which you breach at terminal risk to your career.

MIT's inconvenient scientist - The Boston Globe

Had he done this prior to receiving tenure, and a funded chair at MIT he would have been ostracized and cast out. Since publishing his penetrating criticisms of the Global Warming cult.. he has been subjected to lawsuits, slander and isolation.

Yep. Just like scientists on the other side. Did you expect any different?

American Universities are now in the grip of New Age Occultism.. anchored in extreme and irrational forms of environmentalism, feminism, especially in promotion of abortion and embryonic stem cell research, moral relativism, and radical individualism.. in the sciences, arts and social sciences.. all geared to a 'post-Christian' characterization of humankind as some kind of pestilence on the natural order of things.

You don't get an EDUCATION at U.S. universities now, you get an INDOCTRINATION.

Indoctrination? You mean like as in Christianity et al?

Anyway, it's all a part of evolution. Changes happen, get over it and move on, child.

... all based on lies and fear mongering..

Just like the denial side .... with a fully funded concoction of pseudoscientific and political bilgewater .. payed for by profiteers in the burgeoning 'denial' industry.

 

[coldstream]

With all due respect to Lindzen, he's been shown to be wrong about a few things. But he is right about some of the crap that flies around the issue of AGW.
And if you claim AGW is a hoax, you should be able to at least provide evidence for the claim, But I know you can't and won't. Yep. Just like scientists on the other side. Did you expect any different?

Indoctrination? You mean like as in Christianity et al?

Anyway, it's all a part of evolution. Changes happen, get over it and move on, child.

I have trouble dealing with the all encompassing cynicism of your world view, LG.. where there are no Truths.. just opinions.. and who cares anyway. It's the kind of cosmic muffin theology that rules the Western world today. :roll:

 

[L Gilbert]

I have trouble dealing with the all encompassing cynicism of your world view, LG.. where there are no truths.. just opinions.. and who cares anyway. It's the kind of cosmic muffin theology that rules the Western world today. :roll:

Yeah, but then you have trouble dealing with evidence, fact, and reality so your oppinion is pretty bulemic.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

You've got to kidding. The entire rotten structure of AGW has NEVER been about science or research. It in based totally and exlusively on RIGGED computer climate models.. that have NEVER been able to predict anything. The dire warnings are continually revised as we that none of doomsday scenarios are being realized. That's not science.. that is some kind of grotesque and viciously anti-human philosophy. It doesn't even pretend to be a 'science' except in name... it is what it has always been.. a 'religion' and a political agenda.

If you`re that far off base then it`s hard to know where to start.

First off some of the most important breakthoughs in understanding what we call AGW were made before the turn OF THE LAST CENTURY. There`s actually very little controversial about it other than the fact it has certain implications on where we get energy from, that`s a political issue not a scientific one.

Do a little research on Joseph Fourier and how he determined the differences in what the global temperature average was and what it should be. He did that way back in 1826 I think and it can be thought of as the start of climate change science. The next big step was in the 1850s when John Tyndall found the gases in the atmosphere that explained the temperature differences that Fourier found. He demonstrated before the London Royal Society( one of the first scientific bodies) that CO2 and water vapour trapped heat. Then look at the work of Svante Arrhenius who went through thousands of hand calculations using the known properties of the greenhouse gases to determine the effect on the global environment of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmsophere. He determined it would result in a +6C change which is still within the margin of error of todays calculations...this was in 1898. Further work in the 1930s-40s by Guy Callendar refined that to closer to todays results for doubling of CO2 of around +3.5C and Gilbert Plass refined it even further in the 1950s using modern infrared spectroscopy and got results of about +3C. This was all before the widespread use or even presense of computers.

Since then we`ve had the work of Charles Keeling and so many more that have not only calculated the effects of doubling of CO2 but have monitored the increases of atmospheric CO2 and the gradual and not so gradual changes in the global environment. I`ve posted on the significant changes in the cryosphere on another thread which you failed to respond to, this and many other indicators are consistent with predictions that were made long before digital computers even existed.

The science behind climate change is solid, by constantly attacking it deniers are also constantly attacking modern science which also has serious consequences. There are people here, whether serious or not that are calling for a return to the days of witch hunting, an age of unreason that science as a response grew out of. Talking about science as being occult is getting the real situation backwards.

 

[coldstream]

If you`re that far off base then it`s hard to know where to start.

First off some of the most important breakthoughs in understanding what we call AGW were made before the turn OF THE LAST CENTURY. There`s actually very little controversial about it other than the fact it has certain implications on where we get energy from, that`s a political issue not a scientific one.

Do a little research on Joseph Fourier and how he determined the differences in what the global temperature average was and what it should be. He did that way back in 1826 I think and it can be thought of as the start of climate change science. The next big step was in the 1850s when John Tyndall found the gases in the atmosphere that explained the temperature differences that Fourier found. He demonstrated before the London Royal Society( one of the first scientific bodies) that CO2 and water vapour trapped heat. Then look at the work of Svante Arrhenius who went through thousands of hand calculations using the known properties of the greenhouse gases to determine the effect on the global environment of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmsophere. He determined it would result in a +6C change which is still within the margin of error of todays calculations...this was in 1898. Further work in the 1930s-40s by Guy Callendar refined that to closer to todays results for doubling of CO2 of around +3.5C and Gilbert Plass refined it even further in the 1950s using modern infrared spectroscopy and got results of about +3C. This was all before the widespread use or even presense of computers.

I'm quite willing to assess the merit of Tyndall or Fourier or Callendar or other's models.. and they are models... not empirical science.. on the basis of their accuracy.

We have not had a 6 degree increase in global temperatures in the last century.. or 3 degree..which would have produced catastrophic consequences. In fact there has been no consistent and permanent increase at all.

If all you are presenting is a hypothesis.. and none of the empircal measures of that hypothesis support it.. then you can safely file it in the trash bin of quack science. That is the scientific method.. which the climate religion has rejected.. EXCEPT.. when it supports its case... and it is forever inventing and manipulating data to do just that. And of course that is not science at all.


You also have to fully vet ALL other inputs to the climate.. of which carbon is only a minute and extremely variable element.. even if there was any climate change.. which there isn't. And they haven't bothered to do that either... or they would have been able to explain the warming of earth about the year 1000 or the mini Ice Age from about 1400 - 1800.. not to mention the major climate epochs.. which they can't.

You can safely say that the entire construct is now in the hands of fraudsters.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

I'm quite willing to assess the merit of Fourier or other's models.. and they are models... not empirical science.. on the basis of their accuracy. We have not had a 6 degree increase in global temperatures in the last century.. which would have produced catastrophic consequences. In fact there has been no consistent and permanent increase at all. If all you are presenting is a hypothesis.. and none of the empircal measures of that hypothesis support it.. then you can safely file it in the trash bin of quack science. That is the scientific method.. which the climate religion has rejected.. EXCEPT.. when it supports its case. And of course that is not science at all.

Fourier wasn`t making models of the global climate he was taking measurements that have been refined constantly over the almost 200 years since his work.

Most of modern climate science is still taking real-world measurements, the modelling is based on that and is intended to refine not replace real world evidence.

The changes in ice cover alone contradict what you`re claiming about there being no consistent and permanent changes, the yearly loses from the Greenland Ice Sheet alone are huge. As for the Arrhenius` predictions, we don`t know for certain yet if he was right right, we haven`t reached the 560 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that would result from a doubling of the gas from pre-industrial times. and long before we get there we`d most likely cross tipping points that would lead to catastrophic climate change, if we haven`t gotten there already, there`s lag time in how the changes occure.

There is ample evidence if you`re willing to look at it.

 

[coldstream]

Fourier wasn`t making models of the global climate he was taking measurements that have been refined constantly over the almost 200 years since his work.

Most of modern climate science is still taking real-world measurements, the modelling is based on that and is intended to refine not replace real world evidence.

The changes in ice cover alone contradict what you`re claiming about there being no consistent and permanent changes, the yearly loses from the Greenland Ice Sheet alone are huge. As for the Arrhenius` predictions, we don`t know for certain yet if he was right right, we haven`t reached the 560 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that would result from a doubling of the gas from pre-industrial times. and long before we get there we`d most likely cross tipping points that would lead to catastrophic climate change, if we haven`t gotten there already, there`s lag time in how the changes occure.

There is ample evidence if you`re willing to look at it.

I've no doubt quacks existed 200 years go on climate hysteria. The only difference now is its turned in flocks of quacks, that blot out the sun as they pass over.


http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html

This is an excellent piece on the recycled lies of the mainstream media puts out to maintain AGW at a fever pitch. It points out the these are deliberate LIES. That the Antarctic Ice Plates are EXPANDING, that the Southern Ocean in colder now than at any other time in which it has been measured.

Perhaps you should look at the ample evidence that there is NO AGW, it's all part of a vicious political and economic agenda.

 

[L Gilbert]

I've no doubt quacks existed 200 years go on climate hysteria. The only difference now is its turned in flocks of quacks, that blot out the sun as they pass over.


http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html

This is an excellent piece on the recycled lies of the mainstream media puts out to maintain AGW at a fever pitch. It points out the these are deliberate LIES. That the Antarctic Ice Plates are EXPANDING, that the Southern Ocean in colder now than at any other time in which it has been measured.

Perhaps you should look at the ample evidence that there is NO AGW, it's all part of a vicious political and economic agenda.

lmao you post this ridiculous link again after I've shown why it's fulla nuts?
rofl

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

I've no doubt quacks existed 200 years go on climate hysteria. The only difference now is its turned in flocks of quacks, that blot out the sun as they pass over.


http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html

This is an excellent piece on the recycled lies of the mainstream media puts out to maintain AGW at a fever pitch. It points out the these are deliberate LIES. That the Antarctic Ice Plates are EXPANDING, that the Southern Ocean in colder now than at any other time in which it has been measured.

Perhaps you should look at the ample evidence that there is NO AGW, it's all part of a vicious political and economic agenda.

This is conspiracy theory BS.

I think it's high time we have some good old fashion witch burnings.

If these clowns want to keep thinking we're all backwards, close minded cave dwellers.... perhaps we should start acting like it & clear out some of these idiots from the Gene Pool in the process.

BTW how is encouraging the murder of people based on their occupation in any way compatible with the rule of law or morality.

I'm surprised the same kind of mindless **** that provoked the Rawanda killings is allowed on this forum.

 

[petros]

Rainmanton Rebel IS a conspiracy theory.

 

[Tonington]

Perhaps you should look at the ample evidence that there is NO AGW, it's all part of a vicious political and economic agenda.

Never heard of the Suess Effect I see...

 

[Locutus]

It's fun having the Anthropogenic (they keep altering their name so pardon me if I don't stay current with 'em) folks around. Almost as hilarious as the Scientology crowd. :lol:

 

[petros]

Dr Seuss illustrated by Hendrick Avercamp