Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[chuckChuck]

And the other scientist from BC who is in agreement with him is what?

A colleague? He wasn't in the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, does the term cognitive dissonance resonates with you at all?

You and DML keep insisting that science is incorruptible and your climate scientists can't be bought and paid for. But yet, as soon as someone presents a scientist with a view that disagrees with your agenda, Instead of even attempting to refute the message, Immediately resort to claiming they are paid off, Therefore regardless of the credentials or the message it can be dismissed offhand.

Lindzen calls people who dispute the connection between rising CO2 and warming as nutty!

Lindzen calls people who think like you A5 as nutty. He may disagree with some aspects or models but he does believe in the basic science which you apparently don't believe! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, does the term cognitive dissonance resonates with you at all?

You and DML keep insisting that science is incorruptible and your climate scientists can't be bought and paid for. But yet, as soon as someone presents a scientist with a view that disagrees with your agenda, Instead of even attempting to refute the message, Immediately resort to claiming they are paid off, Therefore regardless of the credentials or the message it can be dismissed offhand.

[flea beetle]

And the other scientist from BC who is in agreement with him is what?

[chuckChuck]

And you never watched the links either...

Lindzen is now well retired and has settled into political activism at the CATO Institute where he takes money from the Coal industry.

https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94]

In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015. [98]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[9] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[51]"

Apparently Lindzen doesn't disagree with the basic science of human caused climate change! In fact he calls people who dispute the connection between rising CO2 and warming as nutty! Yes Nutty! LOL


https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Climate Misinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen

Point by point in detail.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And you never watched the links either...

Now, why would they want to do that? When they already know all there is to know, and the science is settled?

[flea beetle]

Don't expect the flat earthers to present any actual credible science or data from practicing climate scientist to back up their opinions.

I have asked for months and nothing appears except personal political opinion, personal attacks and a tidbit of pseudo science from denial sites and activists.

The anti-science denialists have no political leaders who pay attention to their illogical fantasies.

And you never watched the links either...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Don't expect the flat earthers to present any actual credible science or data from practicing climate scientist to back up their opinions.

I have asked for months and nothing appears except personal political opinion, personal attacks and a tidbit of pseudo science from denial sites and activists.

The anti-science denialists have no political leaders who pay attention to their illogical fantasies.

Chuck, I've been trying for months and months to teach you how the scientific method actually works, and some very basic math skills so we can have an intellectual conversation on this issue. You stubbornly keep retreating back to consensus, and models and the views of politicians(even in the above post, you somehow conflate the opinions of political leaders with evidence), and displaying an obvious disdain for anything requiring math. It is very frustrating, but I haven't yet given up.

[chuckChuck]

Don't expect the flat earthers to present any actual credible science or data from practicing climate scientist to back up their opinions.

I have asked for months and nothing appears except personal political opinion, personal attacks and a tidbit of pseudo science from denial sites and activists.

The anti-science denialists have no political leaders who pay attention to their illogical fantasies.

[Washout]

And science should never overrule democracy. Those example you gave all involve personal choice. I can choose not to use glyphosate if I think its dangerous. I can choose not to eat GMOs and I can choose what vaccines I want to take. I cannot choose to not contribute to a carbon tax that has no real end purpose. Your pseudo science should not override my free choice.[/QUOTE]

Well said jazz