Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Res Ipsa]

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

Seriously?

If WUWT is your go to site for climate information, of course it doesn’t look wacky. It’s only after you see the nonsense posted there taken apart time after time that you realize just how wacky it is.

[_Gunnar]

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.

That this charlatan currently has more power and influence on our current government than the most credible climate scientists is nothing to celebrate. Remember that Watts' paper that I mentioned in my last post about him was disavowed even by his co-author on that same paper!

[_spotlight]

But again, this is like RI's hackneyed argument that only a prophet can speak out against a prophet. Within the sober reality of scientific limitations, 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, which have been far more accurate than the IPCC. He was one of the guys who used to work for the IPCC and help them with their forecasts. What else do you expect of him? You want him to pull a rabbit out of a hat and present the world with a prophet-like model that simulates the earth perfectly?

I expect him to coninue to do science, to make adjustments to the models that bring them into closer agreement with the data. He doesn't get to declare that there isn't a climate issue because the existing models are incorrect without providing a better model himself that establishes that to be the case.

Again, burden of proof. He doesn't need to do that in order to point out that the prophet isn't a prophet and his prophecies aren't panning out. He doesn't need to invent a time machine and present video evidence of the Mayans to merely point out all the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, the model, presents a certain narrative. Material facts, however, are inconsistent with that narrative. Like horses. Like metallurgy. Whatever.

"There’s a scene from the movie Pearl Harbor that might resonate in terms of the climate debate. The scene depicts US military personnel on the morning of December 7, 1941, before the bombing. Forward radar station operators see hundreds of blips on their screens. One says, “It might be an attack. We have to warn the base.” The commanding officer replies, saying that he needs confirmation before waking the base on Sunday morning. In a few minutes’ time, smoke becomes visible rising over the harbor. Another officer says, “There’s your confirmation.”
That’s the message we need to get out there. The reality is that we have to make decisions about climate change before all the facts are in. We don’t want to get our confirmation as we did at Pearl Harbor."
http://www.rff.org/research/publication ... nversation

[_Themis]

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.

It's posts like this that really show how ignorant or manipulated you are on these topics. Humans are completely dependent on the environment for survival, so for a long time governments and private organizations have understood the more we know about climate and weather the better decisions we can make in many different areas like farming or city planning. So billions of dollars are spend to collect data and do research so we can understand climate and weather patterns and avoid poor decisions that may result in loss of life or resources. Governments have no vested interest in paying people to tell them global warming is happening because of fossil fuels and we need to spend money to change how we do things. It's just that the many decades of research all over the world is informing us that the climate is warming and that humans are currently the primary cause.

The main problem is the use of fossil fuels which means fixing it either costs a lot to find ways to use them without the release of CO2 and methane or stop using them. This would cost oil and gas companies a lot of money. Especially since it is probably the world's largest industry and there is so much money invested in fossil fuels still in the ground. That's a huge motivation to create doubt about the science, so we shouldn't be surprised if they are spending billions to do so. All those billions for climate research is being used to do research, and most, if not all, don't have motivations for them to make up a story of global warming that will cost us a lot. I'm willing to bet that if the scientific community long ago till now found out CO2 had little effect most environmentalists would not be complaining about global warming, but would spend more time complaining about things like plastic pollution of our oceans.

[_Water Dog]

"There’s a scene from the movie Pearl Harbor that might resonate in terms of the climate debate. The scene depicts US military personnel on the morning of December 7, 1941, before the bombing. Forward radar station operators see hundreds of blips on their screens. One says, “It might be an attack. We have to warn the base.” The commanding officer replies, saying that he needs confirmation before waking the base on Sunday morning. In a few minutes’ time, smoke becomes visible rising over the harbor. Another officer says, “There’s your confirmation.”
That’s the message we need to get out there. The reality is that we have to make decisions about climate change before all the facts are in. We don’t want to get our confirmation as we did at Pearl Harbor."
http://www.rff.org/research/publication ... nversation

The same could be said about quite literally anything. Maybe vaccines are causing autism. I mean we don't know for sure what's causing autism. So, better off safe than sorry, end all vaccines. Maybe an asteroid will strike tomorrow. You simply can't go through life this way. Decisions have to be properly balanced with the level of uncertainty.

[_schreech]

The same could be said about quite literally anything. Maybe vaccines are causing autism. I mean we don't know for sure what's causing autism. So, better off safe than sorry, end all vaccines. Maybe an asteroid will strike tomorrow. You simply can't go through life this way. Decisions have to be properly balanced with the level of uncertainty.

LOL. Its like the Menatalgymnast of science denial.

[_Gunnar]

The same could be said about quite literally anything. Maybe vaccines are causing autism. I mean we don't know for sure what's causing autism. So, better off safe than sorry, end all vaccines. Maybe an asteroid will strike tomorrow. You simply can't go through life this way. Decisions have to be properly balanced with the level of uncertainty.

LOL. Its like the Menatalgymnast of science denial.

And he still, apparently, has no clue about how devastatingly he is sabotaging his own credibilty on this issue. The comparison between him and flat-earthers becomes more apt with every post he makes!

[_spotlight]

"There’s a scene from the movie Pearl Harbor that might resonate in terms of the climate debate. The scene depicts US military personnel on the morning of December 7, 1941, before the bombing. Forward radar station operators see hundreds of blips on their screens. One says, “It might be an attack. We have to warn the base.” The commanding officer replies, saying that he needs confirmation before waking the base on Sunday morning. In a few minutes’ time, smoke becomes visible rising over the harbor. Another officer says, “There’s your confirmation.”
That’s the message we need to get out there. The reality is that we have to make decisions about climate change before all the facts are in. We don’t want to get our confirmation as we did at Pearl Harbor."
http://www.rff.org/research/publication ... nversation

The same could be said about quite literally anything. Maybe vaccines are causing autism. I mean we don't know for sure what's causing autism. So, better off safe than sorry, end all vaccines. Maybe an asteroid will strike tomorrow. You simply can't go through life this way. Decisions have to be properly balanced with the level of uncertainty.

"To begin with, an important distinction needs to be made between prudential and evidential burden of proof (BoP). The prudential BoP is applicable when there are cost asymmetries in arriving at two judgments about whatever matter is under dispute, whereas the evidential burden of proof applies when there are no such cost asymmetries involved.

Consider, for instance, the question of the safety of food additives. If approached as a straightforward scientific question, then the relevant concept is that of evidential BoP: there is no “cost” associated with arriving at the right judgment, other than the symmetric cost in getting a chunk of reality wrong. But if we approach the issue of food additives from the standpoint of its potential consequences for public health, there is a differential cost in getting the wrong answer, so the idea of prudential BoP seems more appropriate.

The (controversial) precautionary principle, which is an application of the prudential burden of proof, states that — if a certain action or policy is suspected to be harmful — the burden falls on those who believe that a new policy or course of action is not harmful. The status quo is perceived as less costly than a potentially dangerous new policy or course of action. In more general terms, the prudential BoP can be applied in situations where the cost of a false positive is significantly different (greater or smaller) from the cost of a false negative.

Examples of prudential BoP where the cost associated with a false negative outweighs that of a false positive include smoke detection alarms, environmental hazards, cancer screening, etc. An example of the opposite case, where false positives are perceived as more costly, include the presumption of innocence in a court of law. This principle in American criminal law clearly skews things in favor of the defendant, but this is done because the risk of a false positive (convicting an innocent) is treated as much less acceptable than the risk of a false negative (exonerating a guilty party)."

https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/201 ... -disputes/

[Guest]

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.

This reminds me of Trump's cynical reply when a reporter asked why he lied so much: "Well, it works for me; I'm President and you're not!"

[_spotlight]

With all that "strong" negative feedback one has to wonder how it is that the earth ever entered a snowball earth phase or had been warmer than today eh? What you are ignoring is the rate at which these changes took place and evolution's ability to keep up. Well some life forms will likely survive if Lindzen et al is wrong right? Just like during the Permian extinction event. At least the Extremophiles.

That's a terribly weak answer. It isn't an answer at all. Questions pertaining to the earth system are independent from organic life's ability to adapt to whatever environment the earth provides. I'm asking a question about warming, and you're answering it with something about potential biological catastrophe. A separate matter, and which also supposes current changes are happening at a rate that life cannot keep up with, which for-sure hasn't been established. Moreover, entertaining that line of thought, look at the historical data. The climate has experience huge and sudden changes, and life has survived them. Alarmist arguments, taking the most dire IPCC doom, also doesn't argue the type of rapid change you're talking about. They do not claim we're on the verge of extinction.

The effects upon lifeforms are the only reason climate change is an issue at all.