Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Water Dog]

SourceWatch was not quoting what Lindzen wrote directly. They quoted what Newsweek reported about what Lindzen wrote.

SourceWatch literally said, "Lindzen wrote," and then proceeded to quote something Lindzen didn't write.

But again, as I explained, that isn't even the main issue. SourceWatch claimed he lied. He didn't. SourceWatch is who lied.

Gunnar, brother, I just blew you out of the sky.



Acting in good faith, I engaged your argument. I proceeded to vet your argument, which is something you should have done, and it fell apart instantly. Your response is to 1) ignore that - which is dishonest, 2) ignore the counter-argument I presented about greenies having money biases as well - which is dishonest, 3) and move on to your next conspiracy theory.

I'm not going to spend my time chasing down all your conspiracy theories for you. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. You had your one shot.

[_Water Dog]

Please post a transcript of the debate. Thanks.

For example

https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=2563

That's not a transcript of the debate. Oh, and I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You just sent me to a point in the video where Lindzen briefly responds to one of Molina's appeals to authority. Do you not understand how a debate work? People present arguments, and then respond to each other's arguments. Molina did not present a science-based argument. This is why I ask for a transcript. What was Lindzen's opening argument? Science. All science. Nobody on the pro global warming side did that. And, no, Molina was not being "interrupted" when he told Lindzen to shut up. He just didn't like having his ego questioned. Lindzen was being completely polite. Molina, a nobel laureate, was straight lying to people. Lindzen called him out over it, and Moina ruffled his pompous feathers.

DT, I realize people will often walk away from events like this having their various biases confirmed. They see what they want to see. But you are uncharacteristically bad at this. I'm trying to be polite and help you. Find a transcript, or create one if this is really a big deal to you. Then we can see, objectively, what argument each person presented and break it down. I will walk through the transcript with you. Lindzen was all science, explaining how the earth system works, limitations of what we know, what we don't know, and so on. The other guys were playing politics. Molina, this guy is a nobel laureate for chrissakes, and he literally said you can "feel" the climate change. WTF?!? No you can't for one, but for two that's not a science argument at all. This is supposed to be a serious scientist and he's up there talking about "weather feelings." Embarrassing. And in that moment when Molina was having a meltdown, it was because Lindzen eviscerated him. Molina was citing a very recent study as evidence of a "trend" and Lindzen points out, that's now how science works. Long-term trends are not established by a one-time instantaneous result.

[Guest]

SourceWatch was not quoting what Lindzen wrote directly. They quoted what Newsweek reported about what Lindzen wrote.

SourceWatch literally said, "Lindzen wrote," and then proceeded to quote something Lindzen didn't write.

That is not what SourceWatch literally said. They said:

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying.

I agree that it would be weird if Lindzen actually wrote (referring to himself) "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies", and almost as weird if Newsweek intended that to be taken as a direct quote from Lindzen. It is more probable that that portion was not in quotes in the referenced Newsweek item, but in quotes in the SourceWatch piece because they were literally quoting that portion of what Newsweek said. It is more likely and makes more sense if the original Newsweek item said something like: "Lindzen wrote that his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." I don't think they would have inserted the word "that" after the word "wrote" if what followed was intended to be a literal, direct quote from Lindzen. They would have just bracketed it with quotation marks and left out the word "that." That's what I would have done, and the more logical way to interpret it.

To focus on that one minor point of what I wrote and to ignore the rest is both dishonest and exceedingly nitpicky, and a fine example of "grasping at straws."

ETA: I wish I could find that original biographical note in the Newsweek article that SourceWatch referred to! It would probably confirm what I just said.

[_DoubtingThomas]

What was Lindzen's opening argument? Science. All science.

And accusing the other side of doing politics and "alarmism".

And, no, Molina was not being "interrupted" when he told Lindzen to shut up. He just didn't like having his ego questioned. Lindzen was being completely polite. Molina, a nobel laureate, was straight lying to people. Lindzen called him out over it, and Moina ruffled his pompous feathers

Molina is not an expert on climate change, it was Schrag that kicked Lindzen's @$$. And Molina was not lying, we do have the evidence that climate change is making hurricanes worse.

"As the Earth’s atmosphere warms, the atmospheric circulation changes. These changes vary by region and time of year, but there is evidence that anthropogenic warming causes a general weakening of summertime tropical circulation1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Because tropical cyclones are carried along within their ambient environmental wind, there is a plausible a priori expectation that the translation speed of tropical cyclones has slowed with warming...A highly significant global slowdown of tropical- cyclone translation speed is evident, of −10% over the 68-yr period 1949–2016"

Kossin, James P. "A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed." Nature 558.7708 (2018): 104

What do you think of the study?

Do you not understand how a debate work? People present arguments, and then respond to each other's arguments.

So how are federal grants relevant to the debate? Lindzen wasn't entirely focused on the science.

[_DarkHelmet]

I haven't watched the video, but I'm loving the comments section. A bunch of geniuses there.

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

That's a fact? Is this a real fact or one of those alternative facts?

[_Water Dog]

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

That's a fact? Is this a real fact or one of those alternative facts?

Doesn't that burden of proof lie with your side of the debate? You tell me whether that is established as a fact or not. This quote merely states that such and such has NOT been established as a fact. It is a fact, that such and such is not a fact. So you tell me, is it actually a fact? For this quote to be wrong, it would have to be a fact. Can show for me that it is an established fact that CO2 CAN drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?

[_Res Ipsa]

Read the science, Dog. If you had, you wouldn’t ask such dumbass questions. And, yes, Imma gonna stalk you in every climate change thread in which you post your ignorant denier drivel. Even your go to authority Richard Lindzen doesn’t deny this.

[_DarkHelmet]

Doesn't that burden of proof lie with your side of the debate? You tell me whether that is established as a fact or not. This quote merely states that such and such has NOT been established as a fact. It is a fact, that such and such is not a fact. So you tell me, is it actually a fact? For this quote to be wrong, it would have to be a fact. Can show for me that it is an established fact that CO2 CAN drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?

Some guy makes a claim that completely contradicts over 100 years of established science, calls his claim a "fact", and the burden of proof is on me to prove his unsubstantiated claim that he pulled out his butt is not a fact? WTF? CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas over 100 years ago. It's well established. Seriously, do you believe CO2 can't drive climate because it is a trace gas? You're not helping yourself out by agreeing with that guy.

[_Water Dog]

Some guy makes a claim that completely contradicts over 100 years of established science, calls his claim a "fact", and the burden of proof is on me to prove his unsubstantiated claim that he pulled out his butt is not a fact? WTF? CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas over 100 years ago. It's well established. Seriously, do you believe CO2 can't drive climate because it is a trace gas? You're not helping yourself out by agreeing with that guy.

Okay. Wait. Back up. Let's unpack what you just said.

Some guy makes a claim that completely contradicts over 100 years of established science

Let's start with this. One Hundred Years of Established Science. Okay. Show for me where in the Established Science textbook it states, "Through empirical data collected over the past 100 years, we can now state it as established fact, that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere."

I will await your reference for this claim you just made.

[_Res Ipsa]

What Dog? Suddenly your boy Lindzen isn’t good enough?

Yeah, WD demands that you prove an entire area of science right here on this blog because he’s too goddam lazy to educate himself.

If a lefty pulled this kind of crap about vaccines he’d be gibberish with rage. But he pulls this crap here because he can’t face up to the consequences of the science.

Anti-science hypocrite.