Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Res Ipsa]

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 ____ 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.

I read the paper. Dog must not have, but just copied his summary from some denier site. Nowhere does the paper say that the warming in the arctic is caused by pollution and not CO2. Or maybe Dog thinks “gist” means “made up crap that the paper doesn’t say.”

[_Gunnar]

I read the paper. Dog must not have, but just copied his summary from some denier site. Nowhere does the paper say that the warming in the arctic is caused by pollution and not CO2. Or maybe Dog thinks “gist” means “made up crap that the paper doesn’t say.”

Caught once again in misrepresenting a source that he hoped none of us would read ourselves, and that he probably hasn't read or understood himself. I think it would be fair to suggest that Water Dog has, on balance, done more damage to his own credibility than most of his critics have.

[_Water Dog]

You actually regard Anthony Watts as a credible and reliable source?

You know, I really just don't even know how to react to comments like this. Three LOL emojis. Wow. You mean business, don't ya? Reading articles on his site, I'm not seeing anything wacky. What are you so giggly about? Some stuff is political, most of it is science-based. Some opinion, others more objective and factual. Not hard to tell the difference between what is what. I see material that represents a wide swath of opinion. Don't have to agree with all of it. Comments are wide open, I can see alarmists responding to posts, I can see what they post. I don't see people getting banned or censored.

People who certainly have a heck lot more credibility than anybody commenting on this thread don't seem to have any qualms about associating with the site, like Lindzen or Curry or Moore. A lot of well known folks author pieces that appear on the site. What am I supposed to be ashamed by? Plus, I know you to be someone who relies on conspiracy sites to feed you silly lies about Kavanaugh. Objective things that take 5 minutes to vet with very little effort. Not complicated science matters that are quite difficult to suss out. But simple things, did he say this or not. Nope, he didn't say it. Not much to debate there.

Honestly, my reaction is similar to trash that gets talked about Trump. I see a lot of people ridiculing Anthony Watts. Hardee damned Harr. Uhhh, he's running circles around you. Have you seriously not gotten the memo? In case you hadn't noticed, nobody is listening to the IPCC. The president of the united states, along with the party who controls both chambers of congress, is expressing skepticism about you and your warming "consensus." Watts just happens to run the #1 "denier" site on the internet. The internet, you know, that communication medium that the entire world uses to communicate. The people who appear at Congressional hearings testifying against the alarmists, uh, they are very active and post articles on Watts' site.

So, yeah, laugh it up. So hilarious. A bunch of anonymous twerps on a Mormon discussion forum thinks they are idiots. I'm sure that upsets them greatly. WTF are you talking about? Anthony Watts and his contributors, they have actual power and are players in the game, no crap influencing political policy in the #1 most powerful government on the whole damned planet. But, sure, keep laughing. Knuckle dragging clowns they are. That guy, with his website, arguably has more power than Gavin Schmidt and a muti-billion NASA federal budget behind him.

Hardee damned Harrrrrr

[INSERT GIF MEME OF Trump SHIELDING THE PLANET FROM THE SUNS DEATH RAYS WITH HIS MASSIVE COMBOVER]

[_DarkHelmet]

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.

Yeah, I think it's clear why those whose income depends on burning fossil fuels have a bias, but I don't see why scientist's jobs depend on global warming being a thing. If they were just in it for the money, they could write papers for the fossil fuel industry debunking global warming. In fact, it seems like there would be a lot more money in that. There's far less competition for those jobs, and the people funding global warming denial science have a ton of money.

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, I think it's clear why those whose income depends on burning fossil fuels have a bias, but I don't see why scientist's jobs depend on global warming being a thing. If they were just in it for the money, they could write papers for the fossil fuel industry debunking global warming. In fact, it seems like there would be a lot more money in that. There's far less competition for those jobs, and the people funding global warming denial science have a ton of money.

That's a great point.

You have to be a wind-up toy with a GOP key in your back to think the scientists have more to gain financially than the fossil fuel industry. I mean, is so painfully bloody obvious who wants something to be true that isn't, who has more to gain by spreading misinformation. Talk about blinded by bias.

Lucky for these businesses, the same people who believe in religion/supernatural crap are excellent candidates to argue for other forms of BS. They've shown how far they will go to dispute evolutionary science. Climate change is nothing.

[_Themis]

Honestly, my reaction is similar to trash that gets talked about Trump. I see a lot of people ridiculing Anthony Watts. Hardee damned Harr. Uhhh, he's running circles around you. Have you seriously not gotten the memo? In case you hadn't noticed, nobody is listening to the IPCC. The president of the united states, along with the party who controls both chambers of congress, is expressing skepticism about you and your warming "consensus." Watts just happens to run the #1 "denier" site on the internet. The internet, you know, that communication medium that the entire world uses to communicate. The people who appear at Congressional hearings testifying against the alarmists, uh, they are very active and post articles on Watts' site.

While the current federal government in the US is not accepting of what the IPCC is telling us, many are. Sure they currently have the power and can do what they want, but that doesn't change the facts of what can happen. The world is full of history of those in power messing things up and the peasants usually paying the most price for it. I like to look at the science and since much of it may need some math and physics I don't understand atm, my strategy is to usually support the scientific consensus. They usually have the least motivation to lie, and when it comes to money and climate change there is one group with the most to lose and is made of of some of the world's largest companies.

Watts by the way is not an expert. Meteorologists have some of the education they need, but are not experts, and a large majority of them don't agree with Watt's opinions on the matter. Would it not be wise when reading his blog to look up the actual experts and read what they have to say and why they may think Watt's or Lindzen is right or wrong?

[_canpakes]

Honestly, my reaction is similar to trash that gets talked about Trump. I see a lot of people ridiculing Anthony Watts. Hardee damned Harr. Uhhh, he's running circles around you. Have you seriously not gotten the memo? In case you hadn't noticed, nobody is listening to the IPCC. The president of the united states, along with the party who controls both chambers of congress, is expressing skepticism about you and your warming "consensus." Watts just happens to run the #1 "denier" site on the internet. The internet, you know, that communication medium that the entire world uses to communicate. The people who appear at Congressional hearings testifying against the alarmists, uh, they are very active and post articles on Watts' site.

So, yeah, laugh it up. So hilarious. A bunch of anonymous twerps on a Mormon discussion forum thinks they are idiots. I'm sure that upsets them greatly. WTF are you talking about? Anthony Watts and his contributors, they have actual power and are players in the game, no crap influencing political policy in the #1 most powerful government on the whole damned planet. But, sure, keep laughing. Knuckle dragging clowns they are. That guy, with his website, arguably has more power than Gavin Schmidt and a muti-billion NASA federal budget behind him.

Hardee damned Harrrrrr

Shorter Dog:

“We know we’re lying, but we’re winning!!”

Well. I guess if that’s what it takes for you to feel good about yourself, go for it. The rest of us will choose a better path.

[_Water Dog]

Yeah, I think it's clear why those whose income depends on burning fossil fuels have a bias, but I don't see why scientist's jobs depend on global warming being a thing. If they were just in it for the money, they could write papers for the fossil fuel industry debunking global warming. In fact, it seems like there would be a lot more money in that. There's far less competition for those jobs, and the people funding global warming denial science have a ton of money.

That just isn't how it works, like, at all. Either on the academic/research side, or on the industry side. Go compare federal dollars that goes towards climate research, vs money that "big oil" or whoever is spending against it. The disparity is similar to Russia spending a few bucks on social media ads in an election where billions was spent. http://www.climatedollars.org/ The pro warming dollars outpace the skeptical dollars by a huge margin. Like a hundred to one. This kind of talk is and always has been tin foil conspiracy.

"Big Oil" isn't scared of you. They don't care, they make money either way. There is no debate to be had here. If you're a climatologist, your options are taxpayer funded warming research, weather man, and bartender. There is a many hundreds of billions strong industry right now thanks to all this hysteria. It's a money boon for the warmers. That doesn't imply a conspiracy. They aren't faking it. It's not a hoax. But yes, they are biased. I'm not sure why that's hard to visualize. So much money spent on research of a phantom with little to show for it. But better safe than sorry.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Reading articles on his site, I'm not seeing anything wacky.

Seriously?

[_Gunnar]

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.

Yeah, I think it's clear why those whose income depends on burning fossil fuels have a bias, but I don't see why scientist's jobs depend on global warming being a thing. If they were just in it for the money, they could write papers for the fossil fuel industry debunking global warming. In fact, it seems like there would be a lot more money in that. There's far less competition for those jobs, and the people funding global warming denial science have a ton of money.

I totally agree! Climatologists don't have an inherent financial incentive to conclude that AGW is both real and problematic. They are paid to study climate and how it affects and is affected by human activity. Their salary level does not depend on what conclusions they come to, unless they receive a significant portion of their funding directly or indirectly from the fossil fuel industry, or organizations funded by them, and whose bottom line is heavily dependent on how much of their product they can sell. The vast majority of (if not all) climatologists hate the fact of AGW and its most problematic consequences at least as much as anyone else!

Katherine Hayhoe brilliantly points out the absurdity of the idea that those scientists warning us about the potential dangers of climate change are in it just for the money.