My connection doesn’t do video but I am long acquainted to Richard Lindzen’s informed voice of reason…..denounced by the “credentialed” activists….by ad hominums.
A voice of reason and common sense. However, don’t expect the socialist cabal of Soros, Mr. Iffy, Taliban Jack and Strong to endorse Richard Lindzen as he exposes their attempt at hijacking the western world’s economy to further Karl Marx’s agenda.
What has been resolved at climate change conferences? A firm commitment to meet again.
Some people just like meeting at fancy watering holes every six months.
Great interview,with a person who hasn’t panicked or embraced a new religion.
“in the case of using climate models it’s almost like appealing to a oiuji board”
Nah, that can’t be. Time to ditch all those compact fluorescents.
He spoke well to the credibility of the science of the AGW debate, but that’s not the most important issue at hand. It’s never been in doubt that the AGW ‘theory’ would crumble under scrutiny and reality. What IS in doubt is our ability to stop our politicians from sticking it to us with some form of Green Shaft; and, relinquishing our nation’s sovereignty at the same time. Regardless of the scientific debate, once the infrastructure is fully in place for Carbon pricing it will be too late to fix the economy. The proverbial horses would have already left the barn. This is similar to the HC issue in the US.
The good news is the AGW bill has failed in the Canadian Senate. It will be very interesting to see what happens down south with a Republican House and a much smaller Democrat majority in the Senate.
I expect that BO will at sometime in the near future play the EPA card.
Bear @ 9:48
Make that “those POISONOUS compact flourescents”.
Load up those that no longer function, you know, the ones that have delivered their inadequate illumination for their claimed 5000 hours, into the SUV, take them to the nearest Hazardous Materials Disposal facilities and back.
Now, Mr Fruitfly, you tell me….. how “Green” is that!
Yeah, my bad I forgot to mention the mercury vapours.
I think he substantiated what we have all said to the alarmist cult followers from day one. That it isn’t a matter of climate change or cold or hot cycles but a matter of whether man made GHG even play a roll in the process and if so how significant is it. We always promoted perspective on an issue that was essentially driven by hysterics.
Now that the post Copenhagen world has a put AGW and climate change in better perspective , it is apparent that there is no alarm and that AGW has a miniscule effect on the climate.
That fact has separated the scientists from the ‘activists’.
This is the day the waters stop rising in the fake lakes.
A Richard Lindzen interview yrs ago led me to writing what was probably my first letter stating that AGW was BS.
Sasquatch : You put it in a nutshell. Lindzen is a scientist:
…denounced by the “credentialed” activists….by ad hominums.
Precisely because he is an ” informed voice of reason.”
AGW ” scientists ” are just another interest group, seeking money and power through whatever means they consider necessary.
Shows how broken university governance is, that Mann et al still have jobs at academic institutions.
What a reasonable discussion. Time for a test. Which characteristics below describe a believer in Global Warming?
1. Calm and rational
2. Hysterical & apocalyptic
3. Invites further research and investigation
4. Discourages any investigation
5. Willing to discuss details of the science
6. Shuns debates
7. Continually asks for your money
8. Never asks for donations
9. Openly provides data for scrutiny
10. Limited access to data
Now which characteristics are indicative of a trustworthy person?
Well put Dave in M. The acid test that invariably separates the scientists from the alarmists seems to be, “Don’t just believe me, doubt me and check the facts for yourself” vs “Don’t ask any questions, just send money”.
Dave in M nails it !!
And I will ask; Which type of person does our beloved “investigative minded” media flock to?
David Suzuki or Timothy Ball?
Albert Gore or Richard Lindzen?
Michael Mann or Anthony Watts?
James Hansen or Steven McIntyre?
Barrack Obama or Sarah Palin?
Vivitrius is gonna blow a gasket when he sees you guys claiming that the greenhouse effect actually exists.
Which comment here claims the greenhouse effect exists?
None that I can see.
Ricard Lindzen clearly states it, and several here imply it, whether by calling him “A voice of reason and common sense”, or by speaking about “man made GHG”.
Quick. Somebody show this video to the Arctic so it knows to stop melting.
Clearly, Alex, you missed the part where Richard Lindzen says that warming would be a fraction of a degree in a century and that any anthropogenic contribution had such a small variable from natural change as to be indistinguishable.
Clearly you didn’t actually read what I wrote.
Skeptics of catastrophic man-made climate change (some call themselves cc realists) don’t agree on everything, neither do climate change worriers. The difference is that climate skeptics do not require complete agreement. Disagreement, in real science, is completely normal, even expected. Cultist religion and politics, OTOH, requires absolute obedience.
Quick, somebody raise taxes so the Arctic knows “knows to stop melting”.
“The difference is that climate skeptics do not require complete agreement. Disagreement, in real science, is completely normal, even expected.”
Absolutely. There’s plenty of disagreement about AGW within the scientific community, and that’s as it should be. Thing is, I haven’t met a climate skeptic in these parts yet. There’s a massive difference between a skeptic and a cynic.
What, in your opinion, is the difference?
Alex:
No scientist denies the existence of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’
(the warming of an actual greenhouse is not caused by the greenhouse effect)
however the primary greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, it is water vapour.
The thesis of the alarmists is based on the unlikely hypothesis
that there is a positive feedback due to the carbon dioxide.
Dr. Lindzen clearly explains why hypothesis is unlikely
in this very enlightening short interview.
The only ‘evidence’ for the positive feedback is based
on several cooked up computer models
which Dr. Lindzen rightly calls ‘ouija boards’.
Thing is, I haven’t met a climate skeptic in these parts yet. There’s a massive difference between a skeptic and a cynic.
Posted by: Alex at November 26, 2010 4:17 PM
Ahh, the new resident troll gracing us again with its presence, raising itself above the regular hoi polloi of SDA, and enlightening us with its wisdom. Your MO is getting a little played, Alex. Oh, so played.
Allan, co2 does have a small positive feedback that is overridden by layering and H2O.
+ CO2 operates on the log scale for absorption
It’s always refreshing to hear normal thought on the climate…instead of tipping points…earth burning up…the pozie scheme is more and more exposed to the light..
As I listened to Prof. Lindzen my minds eye could see people calmly discussing the elephant who just passed through town and is slowly disappearing in the distance.
That stuttering fool interviwer and his continual condescending reference to “laymen” just about had me punching the monitor.
So big freekin deal … after more than a decade of these tools pimping the alarmist agenda …. NOW all of a sudden … reason is the order of the day!
They can’t give up the dream of billions with total environmental control politically. A Worldwide pass to screw the West. They would never try it in the East, as Greenpeace shows us every day.
This is like a hungry werewolf.
Out to maim , eat. Sit in digestion of its Planet spanning meal.
JMO
OMMAG, punch the monitor again and again…
People that buy this AGW crap deserve the term “laymen” because they are sheeple; don’t give a shit about much other than what touches them every day and believe anything they are told by “authorities”. They are the the useful idiots.
Others that willingly promote this crap are making money and are frauds; i.e environmental groups or foundations. They should all have their tax exempt status revoked if they have it.
Suzuki comes to mind.
My connection doesn’t do video but I am long acquainted to Richard Lindzen’s informed voice of reason…..denounced by the “credentialed” activists….by ad hominums.
A voice of reason and common sense. However, don’t expect the socialist cabal of Soros, Mr. Iffy, Taliban Jack and Strong to endorse Richard Lindzen as he exposes their attempt at hijacking the western world’s economy to further Karl Marx’s agenda.
What has been resolved at climate change conferences? A firm commitment to meet again.
Some people just like meeting at fancy watering holes every six months.
Great interview,with a person who hasn’t panicked or embraced a new religion.
“in the case of using climate models it’s almost like appealing to a oiuji board”
Nah, that can’t be. Time to ditch all those compact fluorescents.
He spoke well to the credibility of the science of the AGW debate, but that’s not the most important issue at hand. It’s never been in doubt that the AGW ‘theory’ would crumble under scrutiny and reality. What IS in doubt is our ability to stop our politicians from sticking it to us with some form of Green Shaft; and, relinquishing our nation’s sovereignty at the same time. Regardless of the scientific debate, once the infrastructure is fully in place for Carbon pricing it will be too late to fix the economy. The proverbial horses would have already left the barn. This is similar to the HC issue in the US.
The good news is the AGW bill has failed in the Canadian Senate. It will be very interesting to see what happens down south with a Republican House and a much smaller Democrat majority in the Senate.
I expect that BO will at sometime in the near future play the EPA card.
Bear @ 9:48
Make that “those POISONOUS compact flourescents”.
Load up those that no longer function, you know, the ones that have delivered their inadequate illumination for their claimed 5000 hours, into the SUV, take them to the nearest Hazardous Materials Disposal facilities and back.
Now, Mr Fruitfly, you tell me….. how “Green” is that!
Yeah, my bad I forgot to mention the mercury vapours.
I think he substantiated what we have all said to the alarmist cult followers from day one. That it isn’t a matter of climate change or cold or hot cycles but a matter of whether man made GHG even play a roll in the process and if so how significant is it. We always promoted perspective on an issue that was essentially driven by hysterics.
Now that the post Copenhagen world has a put AGW and climate change in better perspective , it is apparent that there is no alarm and that AGW has a miniscule effect on the climate.
That fact has separated the scientists from the ‘activists’.
This is the day the waters stop rising in the fake lakes.
A Richard Lindzen interview yrs ago led me to writing what was probably my first letter stating that AGW was BS.
Sasquatch : You put it in a nutshell. Lindzen is a scientist:
…denounced by the “credentialed” activists….by ad hominums.
Precisely because he is an ” informed voice of reason.”
AGW ” scientists ” are just another interest group, seeking money and power through whatever means they consider necessary.
Shows how broken university governance is, that Mann et al still have jobs at academic institutions.
What a reasonable discussion. Time for a test. Which characteristics below describe a believer in Global Warming?
1. Calm and rational
2. Hysterical & apocalyptic
3. Invites further research and investigation
4. Discourages any investigation
5. Willing to discuss details of the science
6. Shuns debates
7. Continually asks for your money
8. Never asks for donations
9. Openly provides data for scrutiny
10. Limited access to data
Now which characteristics are indicative of a trustworthy person?
Well put Dave in M. The acid test that invariably separates the scientists from the alarmists seems to be, “Don’t just believe me, doubt me and check the facts for yourself” vs “Don’t ask any questions, just send money”.
Dave in M nails it !!
And I will ask; Which type of person does our beloved “investigative minded” media flock to?
David Suzuki or Timothy Ball?
Albert Gore or Richard Lindzen?
Michael Mann or Anthony Watts?
James Hansen or Steven McIntyre?
Barrack Obama or Sarah Palin?
Vivitrius is gonna blow a gasket when he sees you guys claiming that the greenhouse effect actually exists.
Which comment here claims the greenhouse effect exists?
None that I can see.
Ricard Lindzen clearly states it, and several here imply it, whether by calling him “A voice of reason and common sense”, or by speaking about “man made GHG”.
Quick. Somebody show this video to the Arctic so it knows to stop melting.
Clearly, Alex, you missed the part where Richard Lindzen says that warming would be a fraction of a degree in a century and that any anthropogenic contribution had such a small variable from natural change as to be indistinguishable.
Clearly you didn’t actually read what I wrote.
Skeptics of catastrophic man-made climate change (some call themselves cc realists) don’t agree on everything, neither do climate change worriers. The difference is that climate skeptics do not require complete agreement. Disagreement, in real science, is completely normal, even expected. Cultist religion and politics, OTOH, requires absolute obedience.
Quick, somebody raise taxes so the Arctic knows “knows to stop melting”.
“The difference is that climate skeptics do not require complete agreement. Disagreement, in real science, is completely normal, even expected.”
Absolutely. There’s plenty of disagreement about AGW within the scientific community, and that’s as it should be. Thing is, I haven’t met a climate skeptic in these parts yet. There’s a massive difference between a skeptic and a cynic.
What, in your opinion, is the difference?
Alex:
No scientist denies the existence of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’
(the warming of an actual greenhouse is not caused by the greenhouse effect)
however the primary greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, it is water vapour.
The thesis of the alarmists is based on the unlikely hypothesis
that there is a positive feedback due to the carbon dioxide.
Dr. Lindzen clearly explains why hypothesis is unlikely
in this very enlightening short interview.
The only ‘evidence’ for the positive feedback is based
on several cooked up computer models
which Dr. Lindzen rightly calls ‘ouija boards’.
Thing is, I haven’t met a climate skeptic in these parts yet. There’s a massive difference between a skeptic and a cynic.
Posted by: Alex at November 26, 2010 4:17 PM
Ahh, the new resident troll gracing us again with its presence, raising itself above the regular hoi polloi of SDA, and enlightening us with its wisdom. Your MO is getting a little played, Alex. Oh, so played.
Allan, co2 does have a small positive feedback that is overridden by layering and H2O.
+ CO2 operates on the log scale for absorption
It’s always refreshing to hear normal thought on the climate…instead of tipping points…earth burning up…the pozie scheme is more and more exposed to the light..
As I listened to Prof. Lindzen my minds eye could see people calmly discussing the elephant who just passed through town and is slowly disappearing in the distance.
That stuttering fool interviwer and his continual condescending reference to “laymen” just about had me punching the monitor.
So big freekin deal … after more than a decade of these tools pimping the alarmist agenda …. NOW all of a sudden … reason is the order of the day!
They can’t give up the dream of billions with total environmental control politically. A Worldwide pass to screw the West. They would never try it in the East, as Greenpeace shows us every day.
This is like a hungry werewolf.
Out to maim , eat. Sit in digestion of its Planet spanning meal.
JMO
OMMAG, punch the monitor again and again…
People that buy this AGW crap deserve the term “laymen” because they are sheeple; don’t give a shit about much other than what touches them every day and believe anything they are told by “authorities”. They are the the useful idiots.
Others that willingly promote this crap are making money and are frauds; i.e environmental groups or foundations. They should all have their tax exempt status revoked if they have it.
Suzuki comes to mind.