Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_DoubtingThomas]

WaterDog, how fast are the oceans warming from 0 to 700 m?

[_DarkHelmet]

This thread is getting repetitive

[Guest]

I've got an even better idea. I have had the opportunity to converse with a famous "denier," Anthony Watts, in the past. You may recognize the name, he is the proprietor of the Watts Up With That site. I know he accepts opinion pieces from guests of all flavors. How about you prepare a piece for his website? I'm sure he'd be more than happy to post it. The comments sure would be fun to watch.

You actually regard Anthony Watts as a credible and reliable source? I can think of no one more thoroughly and devastatingly discredited than him!

He agreed to abide by whatever conclusion resulted from the BEST Project headed by Richard Muller, who was initially an outspoken skeptic of AGW. When Muller was converted to accepting the reality of AGW as a result of his own study, Watts reneged on that promise and wrote his own paper on the subject--a paper that was so flawed that even Watts' co-author on it disavowed it!

In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."[8] In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts said that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed.[8] Richard A. Muller, founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts' concern about the condition of weather stations; "we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately."[58]

Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.[59] On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: "major announcement coming".[60] The New York Times published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans "are almost entirely the cause" of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team's draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been "spuriously doubled", and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.[61][62] Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. Steve McIntyre, who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been "very last minute and limited". He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent satellite temperature measurements were closer to the NOAA figures.[63]

In 2012 BEST released its series of peer-reviewed papers confirming previous results that the surface temperature is rising.[64]

Do you seriously want to cite him as support for your views?

See also: Climate Misinformation by Source: Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog Watts Up With That. He founded surfacestations.org, which questions the reliability of the surface temperature record. Typically more than half of Watts' live presentations feature photos of poorly sited weather stations.

However, the surface temperature record is one line of evidence among thousands of lines of evidence for global warming. Ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, thousands of species are migrating, seasons are shifting, local populations of species are going extinct. As for the temperature record, warming is also being observed over the ocean, well away from urban heat island and microsite influences.

Lastly, satellite measurements independently find the same warming trend as the surface record, leading prominent skeptic Roy Spencer (head of the UAH satellite team) to conclude about the HadCRUT surface record, "Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we're not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway".

The full body of evidence presents a consistent and overwhelming picture of global warming. Anthony Watts' critique of the surface temperature record is an attempt to distract from this larger picture.

You could hardly find a flimsier straw to grasp at than Anthony Watts!

[_canpakes]

As usual, the left engages in abject hypocrisy. Total derangement. Lindzen is getting rich off big oil! Really? But the people who's jobs literally depend on CAGW being a thing have no bias? REALLY? Really, mother idiots? All these scientists, seriously, what would they be doing right now?

What would this be like, if:

As usual, the right engages in abject hypocrisy. Total derangement. Scientists are getting rich off global warming! Really? But the people like Lindzen who's income and/or notoriety literally depend on CAGW not a thing have no bias? REALLY? Really, mother idiots? All these deniers, seriously, what would they be doing right now?

Option 2 sounds more probable.

[_canpakes]

Why do alarmists plot from 1979? Instead of Earlier? Why 19th century instead of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years earlier?

Simple answer. The complex infrastructure systems that early hominids built and depended upon were completely able to deal with the rate of climate change induced by their own activities during that time.

These historical datasets that say we're actually in a period of historically low CO2 levels, are they wrong? Were CO2 concentrations in the thousands when dinosaurs walked the earth?

Here again, the complex infrastructure systems that the dinosaurs built and depended upon were completely able to deal with the consequences of climate change induced by their own activities during that time.

[_DarkHelmet]

As usual, the left engages in abject hypocrisy. Total derangement. Lindzen is getting rich off big oil! Really? But the people who's jobs literally depend on CAGW being a thing have no bias? REALLY? Really, mother ____? All these scientists, seriously, what would they be doing right now?

Whose job depends on global warming being a thing?

[_canpakes]

, Lindzen HAS done what you're talking about. He has developed models. He has critiqued and adjusted models. He has punched holes in bad models. He has put forward his own forecasts ...

Previously, you've stated no confidence in the model approach, so you imply no confidence in any particular model produced by Lindzen.

[_canpakes]

Here's an interesting paper that's getting a little attention. The basic gist is that warming in the arctic may have little to do with CO2 and is instead being caused by pollution being brought over from east asia which is impacting natural cloud formations. Let's game this out. Let's say there is no global warming at all. Instead, there is regional warming due to whatever cause. What then? How does this impact the discussion?

Hey, look at that:

Our results suggest that smaller cloud droplet effective radii are related to higher required amounts of supercooling but that, overall, pollution plumes from fossil fuel combustion lower the degree of supercooling that is required for freezing by approximately 4 °C.

The idea presented here is that the mechanism may be simpler and the solution more obvious ... while remaining the same solution as before: Burn less damned fossil fuels.

You have your answer. Now you can tell us your opinion on how you believe this impacts the discussion, if you can find that nutsack of yours.

[_Gunnar]

As usual, the left engages in abject hypocrisy. Total derangement. Lindzen is getting rich off big oil! Really? But the people who's jobs literally depend on CAGW being a thing have no bias? REALLY? Really, mother ____? All these scientists, seriously, what would they be doing right now?

Whose job depends on global warming being a thing?

If AGW is a thing, and recognition of that fact results in a concerted effort to wean the world away from heavy dependence on fossil fuels, it obviously would seriously affect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Coal miners are already being laid off as demand for coal falls drastically.

[_canpakes]

LOL. Shorter Dog: Maybe RI can slap me around, but I'd like to see him take on 50 deniers at once.

Jesus Christ on a cracker. Dog's lost his mind.

Lol. You can fight the same bad arguments, repeated over and over, by dozens of denier clones in rabid attack mode. How exciting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g70WH9VJDUc