CO2 Alarmism

[KW]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

 

[KW]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

CO2 levels lag temperature increase historically, they do not lead. This means that CO2 is not causing the warming.

 

[Revoltingest]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

From the link....
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

This quote speaks to his knowledge...or lack thereof.
Differences being seen are far greater than "a few tenths of
a degree", especially at the poles, where the effect on ice
cover would be significant in effecting even greater warming.
NASA - What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth?
If he gets this basic info wrong, then how cromulent are his
other claims?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

Do you have a scientific background - as to any suitable qualifications for example - so as to judge the validity of individual opinions over the larger majority of relevant scientists who apparently have come to the conclusion that global warming has been produced by human activities? Given that there usually are outliers in any field so as to counter what is generally accepted - so why choose/believe this particular one?

 

[KW]

From the link....
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

This quote speaks to his knowledge...or lack thereof.
Differences being seen are far greater than "a few tenths of
a degree", especially at the poles, where the effect on ice
cover would be significant in effecting even greater warming.
NASA - What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth?
If he gets this wrong, then how cromulent are his
other claims?

What is a few?

 

[ChristineM]

Wow, just wow. I didn't think there were any climate change deniers left. The evidence is so overwhelming that even fervent deniers of the 90s and early 2000s have had second thoughts. It's almost as though this EX MIT guy was in the pockets of big oil.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, just wow. I didn't think there were any climate change deniers left. The evidence is so overwhelming that even fervent deniers of the 90s and early 2000s have had second thoughts. It's almost as though this EX MIT guy was in the pockets of big oil.

Is Big Oil claiming no climate change still?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is a few?

Definition of few | Dictionary.com
I see "a few" as roughly equivalent to "several",
which ranges from a "couple" to half a dozen or so.

 

[ChristineM]

Is Big Oil claiming no climate change still?

I don't know but they certainly hype up Linden's work

 

[KW]

Do you have a scientific background - as to any suitable qualifications for example - so as to judge the validity of individual opinions over the larger majority of relevant scientists who apparently have come to the conclusion that global warming has been produced by human activities? Given that there usually are outliers in any field so as to counter what is generally accepted - so why choose/believe this particular one?

I’m a chemist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know but they certainly hype up Linden's work

I've known a few highly educated technical people
who went off the deep end...believing things that
they should've known better about. It happens.
Lindzen appears to be one of those.
It just shows tah go yah....credentials are no
guarantee of cromulence...what matters is the
quality of the evidence & argument.

 

[KW]

Is Big Oil claiming no climate change still?

No one claims that.

Straw dogs are a waste of time. Why bother?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump - Inside Climate News

“A petition accompanying Lindzen’s letter was signed by 300 other people. Lindzen described the signatories as “eminent scientists and other qualified individuals” in his letter. A review of the names by the Guardian, however, revealed few biology, chemistry, climate, earth and physics scientists. Many are well-known climate contrarians and deniers. They include Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Steve Goreham of the Heartland Institute, an industry backed organization that denies climate science; and William Briggs, a statistician at Cornell University who questions climate models.

“In stark contrast to Lindzen’s letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system,” said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.”

“He served as a meteorology professor from 1983 to 2013. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.”
(Underlines - mine)



On some personal points…
1. The term “toxin” is interesting. Oxygen will kill you if you get too much of it. Water will kill you (without drowning) if you swallow too much of it.
2. Nobody claims CO2 is poisoning the plants, or that Earth has never endured these levels of CO2 or heat before. But, it is a matter of speed. No ice caps on Earth is old hat, and plants and animals did just fine in those ancient ages. But none of them had billions of their number living in immobile coastal cities, reliant upon shipping and airplanes in and out of those cities for international trade (unless you’re also claiming that dinosaurs had advanced tech that has here-to-fore never been realized ). Humanity will get through this….but what about the biodiversity of our world? Trees can’t migrate in a decade, nor “get by” with less or more rain in their area. Crops can’t become immune to new (warmer weather) viral and parasite species overnight (while said pathogens can in fact travel as fast as the wind will carry them). Nor can humans.
3. Everything you and retired meteorology Professor Lindzen bring up here has been debunked as weak-sauce garbage, over and over, dozens of times on this forum alone, never mind many thousands of times in the scientific communities and press.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one claims that.

Straw dogs are a waste of time. Why bother?

Clarify?

 

[KW]

From the link....
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

This quote speaks to his knowledge...or lack thereof.
Differences being seen are far greater than "a few tenths of
a degree", especially at the poles, where the effect on ice
cover would be significant in effecting even greater warming.
NASA - What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth?
If he gets this basic info wrong, then how cromulent are his
other claims?

Here are what the rural weather stations say worldwide.

Much different than the propaganda:

What the Stations Say

 

[KW]

Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump - Inside Climate News

“A petition accompanying Lindzen’s letter was signed by 300 other people. Lindzen described the signatories as “eminent scientists and other qualified individuals” in his letter. A review of the names by the Guardian, however, revealed few biology, chemistry, climate, earth and physics scientists. Many are well-known climate contrarians and deniers. They include Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Steve Goreham of the Heartland Institute, an industry backed organization that denies climate science; and William Briggs, a statistician at Cornell University who questions climate models.

“In stark contrast to Lindzen’s letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system,” said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.”

“He served as a meteorology professor from 1983 to 2013. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.”
(Underlines - mine)



On some personal points…
1. The term “toxin” is interesting. Oxygen will kill you if you get too much of it. Water will kill you (without drowning) if you swallow too much of it.
2. Nobody claims CO2 is poisoning the plants, or that Earth has never endured these levels of CO2 or heat before. But, it is a matter of speed. No ice caps on Earth is old hat, and plants and animals did just fine in those ancient ages. But none of them had billions of their number living in immobile coastal cities, reliant upon shipping and airplanes in and out of those cities for international trade (unless you’re also claiming that dinosaurs had advanced tech that has here-to-fore never been realized ). Humanity will get through this….but what about the biodiversity of our world? Trees can’t migrate in a decade, nor “get by” with less or more rain in their area. Crops can’t become immune to new (warmer weather) viral and parasite species overnight (while said pathogens can in fact travel as fast as the wind will carry them). Nor can humans.
3. Everything you and retired meteorology Professor Lindzen bring up here has been debunked as weak-sauce garbage, over and over, dozens of times on this forum alone, never mind many thousands of times in the scientific communities and press.

Leftism fights against opposing views. We know that.

Some reality for you:

What the Stations Say

 

[Mock Turtle]

I’m a chemist.

The counter sort - dishing stuff out - or one with suitable qualifications?

 

[KW]

The counter sort - dishing stuff out - or one with suitable qualifications?

I work in the steel industry.

Irrelevant.

Typical leftist tactic. Attack the messenger.

Deal with cold hard facts:

What the Stations Say

 

[Daemon Sophic]

….
CO2 levels lag temperature increase historically, they do not lead. This means that CO2 is not causing the warming.

No. It doesn’t mean that “CO2 is not causing the warming”. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011362/G2013-077_AACS_CO2_lag_youtube_hq.mov

 

[Revoltingest]

Here are what the rural weather stations say worldwide.

Much different than the propaganda:

What the Stations Say

Do you dispute the NASA link that I provided?
There's much other evidence of more extreme
temp rises than Lindzen claims. We can observe
the changes in the Arctic most of all.