‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Study this list and pick the links you want to read. It helps to have a physics background and be able to understand the math involved. But still a lot of good will be gained from studying his papers.

 

Yes, much better to remain oblivious to the tribal mentality one is immersed in.

 

This paper is good.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/222_Exchange.pdf

I

 

Nope. Wrong again. Richard Lindzen one of the handful of actual scientists, another real crackpot too, who stooge for the fossil fuel industry. He is one of the very few somewhat scientific sources that you denier cult dupes can cite, but he is corrupt and mistaken, and is dismissed as such by the other scientists.

Richard Lindzen
RationalWiki
Richard Lindzen was an atmospheric physicist at MIT until May 2013;[1] as expected, he is now a "Distinguished Senior Fellow" at the Cato Institute.[2]

Lindzen has had a long career in climatology and worked on the IPCC report. However, he became infamously embarrassing for MIT over the last decade as a member of the Bjørn Lomborg "It's not that bad!" school of global warming. Though Lindzen fully accepts AGW, he claims that predictions made by other climatologists' models are "alarmist" and that temperatures will increase by less than one degree Celsius.

Argument from authority, personified
Lindzen is probably the one most responsible for the denialist talking point about models not taking clouds into account.

The Lindzen-Choi paper is the most often cited, but it's been trashed by other scientists for poor methodology and overstating its conclusions.[3][4] Naturally, Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from oil interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC.[5] He is trotted out by deniers as "proof" that "real scientists disagree" about global warming and that there is no scientific consensus, even though he does accept the theory (just not most of the predictions made by the IPCC). His op-eds in popular media have increasingly fallen back on refuted denier talking points as well.

This makes him a massive enabler.

He has also appeared at the Heartland Institute's conferences as the keynote speaker. This makes him a really massive enabler.[6]

Lindzen's talent seems to be making repeatedly failed predictions as well as failing to get much of his material published in peer-reviewed journals in his more "skeptical" days.

Some other stuff he's been wrong about:
* Claiming that the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak."[7]
* Satellite measurements showing no warming.[8]
* Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an "old view.")[9]
* Solar and volcanic forcings were severely downplayed to fudge data.[10]
* Misrepresenting the link between warming and hurricanes.[11]

External links
* "Lindzen Illusions" #1-7, Skeptical Science
* Logical Science profile of Lindzen
* Lindzen vs. Bill Nye
* Real Climate: Climate Reporting in Physics World, Adventures on the East Side, Lindzen in Newsweek

 

Thanks for the hit piece on yet another scientist that dares break AGW lockstep. Modern day McCarthyism on display, another scientist gets blacklisted.

 

dude, holy moly, you really don't realize you're on a message board. who gives two rats feet for your opinion. Your opinion is lower than that rats feet that touch the ground. please post up one science/ physics rep who isn't paid by the government that you feel has justification? You pick a cartoonist over Judith Curry. Perhaps the most decorated scientist who is no longer marching with the tribe. due your posts are foolish and lack any effort. you're a weak person who has no energy to do the right thing. So, how much you get paid to be in here?

BTW, it's called stature and she has it and you........nope.

 

You get your scientific definitions from dictionary.com? That is just sad. It is scientifically incorrect. No phenomenon of nature can be PROVEN to occur every time even when conditions are met. That is statistically impossible. The ends of the bell curve reach to infinity. This is pretty basic stuff dude,

 

Just take physics.

 

What does LAW mean to YOU should you study science?

LAW is well defined.

 

You are malicious. I bet it never occurred to you to ask the man. I did. He was kind enough to reply to my e mail.

It could be he talked to me since I own a book from MIT on the internal combustion engine and Lindzen told me he knew CF Taylor the author prior to his death.

Anyway, He calls BS on your claims about him.

You need to use decent sources and quit shouting at the forum.

 

Since you just post, and are no authority, this is something she writes about.

http://judithcurry.com/2016/02/14/asymmetry-and-the-power-of-the-3/#more-20968

 

http://judithcurry.com/2016/02/14/asymmetry-and-the-power-of-the-3/#more-20968

 

Since I had E mail back from Lindzen, and he agreed to answer questions, one question I asked him if he was paid by the fossil fuel industry for X results.

He denied getting checks from any fossil fuel industry.

I did not ask him about smoking but this claim against him is dubious given it comes with other fakery about Dr. Lindzen.

His critics would have you believe one is the servant of MIT and it's students plus fossil fuel industry chiefs.

I have met some who hold doctorates and they are eligible to consult with industry.

I was a manager of a construction job in SF and hired a man with a doctorate to persuade the BART people my plan was accurate. I had oil industry research to back up my claims so I was on safe ground. His fees were not modest. But he was not in our pocket merely because we hired him. He independently wrote up a paper for BART and their engineers read it and accepted it.

 

This is for the warmers

​S​ubject:

 

For the warmers who march off the cliff

 

Of course it is well defined and repeatable under specific conditions. But it is NOT proven. Are you kidding me when you say you don't know this?

 

While this is true, climate change (including the human component) has not been debunked.

Plus, there is the other side of Curry's statement - science doesn't provide a method of proving something to be true. ALL theories of science can be refuted, because NONE of them have been proven true.

The scientific process depends on theories surviving attempts to prove them false. As they succeed in doing that, they gain the confidence of scientists. One aspect of this is that it is pertinent to recognize when the vast majority of scientists accept a particular theory.

Example: There is no proof of the theory of evolution - only massive evidence. Yet, there is enough confidence from scientists that it is accepted as a foundation of all modern biology.

Does that mean there aren't Curry-like scientists who detract from the theory of evolution? Clearly not. Yet, the massive acceptance of the theory by those who make it their life work to know and the lack of any proof of falsity demands our respect.

 

That which is not proven is not a scientific law.

They call them laws when they are entirely proven.

Boyle's law is proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle's_law

 

Holy cow this is sixth grade science. NOTHING is proven in science. Proofs are for math. Science has too many variables to prove anything. It is statistically impossible. You have to be kidding with this! LOL

 

I had science courses during high school and college.

I never studied this in the 6th grade.

Learn what laws are.

I gave you Boyle's law.

Now accept Ohm's law.

Add in Newton's laws.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/airfoil.html

Here is a long list of laws.

Go for it ace.

Glad to coach you on science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people

 

Dude a law means that a scientific principle can be reliably repeated given a certain set of circumstances. It does NOT mean that it will be repeated EVERY time no matter what. This is so freaking basic I can't believe I am typing this. Science does not PROVE anything. Scientists gather evidence but they NEVER close the case. Anything can possibly be disproven given further evidence. That is why they say the science is settled .....they never say we have proven ANYTHING.

 

I will leave you to a teacher. I just know science.

 

The AGW hypothesis predicts everything so in reality predicts nothing. You can't debunk nothing.

 

A warming earth will not affect every area in exactly the same way.

This isn't a matter of reverse engineering events into a belief system - which it might seem like at times, and which should be allowed to happen.

But, there are quite real predictions of different kinds of behavior for different areas as a result of warming.

We can see the same kind of differing local effects even in other weather patterns that we have experienced for a long time. For example, in the El Nino/La Nina pattern is currently forecast to give CA large amounts of rain. However, here in WA the forecast has been that the same pattern will leave us dryer! So, the same pattern can cause different effects based on location.

Also, there are affects that don't match common knowledge. For example, higher temperature can mean MORE snow in "lake effect" regions east of the lakes, since warmer air can hold more moisture.

Another example is that in some places the land is rising - for example, due to a "spring back" feature from the last glacial period. So, it appears the sea level isn't rising - in fact, it may appear to be receding. In other areas (such as NOLA) the land is sinking due to compression of the delta and the pumping of oil and water. The result is that it looks like the sea level is rising - and rising especially fast.

So, the fact that warming is associated with different kinds of effects shouldn't be surprising.

One common aspect with climate is that change is costly. For example, the years long drought in Syria might not have been a big deal if that was the standard pattern and people were adapted to that. However, the CHANGE toward drought caused agricultural failure and millions moved into the cities - where the government had no solution - thus significantly amplifying the socio/political/sectarian problems.

 

When you attribute every single weather event to AGW you predict nothing at all. How can your hypothesis be proven or debunked when it predicts everything and nothing? If there's more tornadoes it's AGW, if there's less it's AGW. Drought is AGW flood is AGW, on and on and on. This is not science it is hokum.