Climate seminar, Prof Linzen

[avgas]

No need to worry about the starvation thing either as we are going to be swiped out be a solar flare before that, December 12th isn't it? If I see the new year I will think about thinking about it.
In the meantime the whole climate change argument is as good away as any to pass the time when you can't be riding, as is any religious argument.

Dammit. And I thought I was special because my 30th is the end of the world. Mayans 13.0.0.0.0 = 21 Dec
Looks like I will have to move that bash and celebrate Chatham Islands Anniversary day. WOOHOOO

[Jantar]

This topic is like religion.

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doub.../dp/1596916109

A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco industry. Make of that what you will or won't (because you will anyway).

Could you point us to list of those names? I only know of one climate scientist who has worked for the tobacco industry, and he was doing research on climate relating to growing seasons. I do not know of any climate denial scientists.

[SPman]

....... disappear beneath the rising oceans.

I don't give a bugger anymore - the sooner it happens, the sooner we'll have a seaside property.....as long as it rises 900 feet.....

[rainman]

No.
HTH.
And if you'd read and understood even up to page four you wouldn't have needed to ask such a stupid motherfucking question.

Fair cop, although I did read up to page 4 and beyond - his phrasing on p29 just seemed inconsistent with what he had said before. It's such an incoherent piece though it's a bit hard to see what his point actually is. Can you state his main argument in one or two sentences? What bit of his science did you find "fascinating"? (Hopefully something a bit more substantial than that an authority figure said it was OK for you to keep burning fossil fuels and infringing on the property rights of others at no cost, which is the usual anti-climate science argument).

Five minutes of googling has found the man to be all over the place, slinging whatever shit he can come up with (and on a range of topics, see below). And quite a lot of refutation is being slung right back. I can't argue the minutiae of the climate science (and I suspect neither can anyone here), but I have to say he doesn't look like a calm and reasoned voice in the debate. If his argument is so basic and slam-dunk surely he would have published a simple paper in a peer-reviewed journal that sets it out? (Not saying he isn't published, just that this doc isn't up to scratch, and his bibliography seems to be arcane meteorology details about clouds interspersed with pieces in Newsweek and the WSJ).

Could you point us to list of those names? I only know of one climate scientist who has worked for the tobacco industry, and he was doing research on climate relating to growing seasons. I do not know of any climate denial scientists.

Funny you should ask: Richard S Lindzen, it seems has an unusual opinion about tobacco, although I suspect he did not work in the industry.

[Jantar]

I'm not sure Lindzen does have any unusual opinion about tobacco. You have provided a link that quotes some other claim, but no direct quote from Lindzen himself. Maybe he does doubt the link, or maybe he is sure there is a link, but he comments on the statistics that show the correlation is not sufficiently significant. Without his direct statement we cannot know.

However that still doesn't help identify "A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco (sic) industry".

[carbonhed]

Fair cop, although I did read up to page 4 and beyond - his phrasing on p29 just seemed inconsistent with what he had said before. It's such an incoherent piece though it's a bit hard to see what his point actually is. Can you state his main argument in one or two sentences?

The .pdf accompanies the talk. Why you'd want me to paraphrase his presentation when you can just watch the damn thing bewilders me.

[Usarka]

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doub.../dp/1596916109

Could you point us to list of those names?

It was a book, I don't have a link sorry....

[george formby]

David Bellamy's piece on "Our Frozen Planet" was very interestring this week.

Who? Easy mistake to make, they are both British.

Did you note that that episode had been banned in the US?

[Edbear]

Who? Easy mistake to make, they are both British.

Did you note that that episode had been banned in the US?

Whoops who was it? Brain tends to have issues at times..

Can't understand why it would be banned in the US...

[george formby]

Whoops who was it? Brain tends to have issues at times..

Can't understand why it would be banned in the US...

The one without the beard. Attenborough does animals, Bellamy does plants..

Bizarre eh? land of the free etc..

[Edbear]

The one without the beard. Attenborough does animals, Bellamy does plants..

Bizarre eh? land of the free etc..

Of course it was!

[Woodman]

Who? Easy mistake to make, they are both British.

Did you note that that episode had been banned in the US?

Banned? your kidding right?

The sooner that place is bankrupt the better.

[Edbear]

Banned? your kidding right?

The sooner that place is bankrupt the better.

The US has been bankrupt for a very long time.

[rainman]

I'm not sure Lindzen does have any unusual opinion about tobacco. You have provided a link that quotes some other claim, but no direct quote from Lindzen himself. Maybe he does doubt the link, or maybe he is sure there is a link, but he comments on the statistics that show the correlation is not sufficiently significant. Without his direct statement we cannot know.

However that still doesn't help identify "A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco (sic) industry".

Meh, I did come across a more direct link but musta linked the wrong one. Still wasn't a quote from him though - and besides his testimony was 1991 which is almost pre-Internet. Also he might have changed his mind, in the light of better evidence, of course. So I agree the "worked in the industry" bit seems a stretch - but funding arrangements both for and agin' this are pretty murky, it's hard to tell who has worked "for" whom.

If he has real contribution to make I wish him well but would encourage him to get some communications coaching. What mystifies me is why he would release such an incoherent piece, when he is perhaps capable of just writing up his supposed killer evidence in the key peer-reviewed journals. He certainly has the time and access, and the requisite academic mana and qualifications.

If there was any evidence that it's all a grand misunderstanding and climate change is not actually a big deal, and someone had the key missing technical evidence of this, where better to find an audience to hear it than in the usual journals? If it's worth anything, then it will rapidly be adopted as part of the scientific corpus and others will test it and build on it to reach a firmer set of conclusions, which in turn can drive sensible policy. That is what science does.

That this has not happened is a reasonable endorsement of the current status quo, not ruling out any subsequent breakthroughs of course. To believe otherwise simply leads down the paths of conspiracy, which is nuts.

The .pdf accompanies the talk. Why you'd want me to paraphrase his presentation when you can just watch the damn thing bewilders me.

I've read the blurb and think it's incoherent and verging on ranting, and not part of the grown-up science discourse: I'm hardly going to watch the video. Besides you were the one who liked it and said he was talking sense - I simply wondered what bits you thought were particularly sensible. But no worries, I'll just stick with my earlier diagnosis that you just like authority figures telling you that it's OK to infringe on others' property rights for free.

[Jantar]

....What mystifies me is why he would release such an incoherent piece, when he is perhaps capable of just writing up his supposed killer evidence in the key peer-reviewed journals. He certainly has the time and access, and the requisite academic mana and qualifications. ......

Killer evidence about what? If there is ever a peer reviewed paper that shows Climate Change is solely due to anthropogenic reasons then there are any number prepared to publish and alternatives. But so far no such paper has been published.