Posted on 07/02/2006 8:35:11 AM PDT by maine-iac7
Editor's note: Global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science...
The global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease--both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6ºC (or about 1ºF) over the past century is likely. A relevant question is whether this is anything to be concerned about....
It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are "record breakers" or even whether current temperatures are "unprecedented." All that matters is that the change over the past century has been small....
Kyoto, itself, will have no discernable impact on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change...
The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible...
The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto.
(Excerpt) Read more at heartland.org ...
Although Dr. Lindzen wrote this in 2004, it is still relevent and vitally important for help in refuting the catastrophic effects of Kyoto and it's adherents - so is topical today. Gore and the dims see this issue, not only as their ticket back to power, but to turning us into a mere satelite of the UN
Lindzen had a recent op-ed in the WSJ (within the last two weeks if memory serves). Hopefully someone got around to posting that because it echoed what is in your post.
LOL
Tempting!
But my Grampa taught me not to bother getting into a pis*ing contest with a skunk. ;o)
Instead, state your case and let it take root where it may.
Besides, I always feel like I've been splattered with slime if I get too near the dimRats.
I know what you mean, I have to slip on my Mental Hazmat Suit every time I go over there to see what they are up to...
I did a FR search and nothing turned up. That's a bit disconcerting. Our side not keeping on the ball? (but thanks for the heads up, in case this one gets pulled for being 'old news')
ping
LOL
The litmus test to tell the difference between a lib/socialist and a conservative: we seem to have inherited all the 'humor genes' - none left over for the other side
Here's a more recent article by Lindzen. I'm surprised he's still around given his views. He must be too important to silence, else he would be long gone.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
It does pay to speak about the levels of atmospheric CO2. They are increasing. To be sure, over long periods, climate can cause CO2 changes, but the increases observed over the past century are likely due to man's activities. When and if the levels double, they will increase the radiative forcing of the planet by about 4 Wm-2, or about 2 percent. This will prove relevant.
I take it as fact.
He goes on to contend that the current consensus is dishonest as well as wrong, and motivated more by personal financial concerns than legitimate science - a cheap shot...and disgustingly self-righteous.
He then says Kyoto would most likely be ineffective even if fully implemented. Almost certainly correct. And that any currently proposed mitigation efforts would also be ineffective. Again correct.
He then claims that there's no reason for alarm, that the CO2 build-up is not-threatening. Bullshit.
He goes on to contend that the current consensus is dishonest as well as wrong, and motivated more by personal financial concerns than legitimate science - a cheap shot...and disgustingly self-righteous.
His comments are based on his understanding of the way "research" is conducted in this field. Since he's intimately familiar with the process and is one of the nation's preeminent atmospheric scientists I'll take his word for it, despite your own cheap shots at him.
Lindzen is a serious scientist, as well as a dissenter from the currently fashionable consensus, so when he says ...[omitted]...I take it as fact.
Then -- quicker'n a snake in a blender -- you say:
He then claims that there's no reason for alarm, that the CO2 build-up is not-threatening. Bullshit.
Cherry-picking, anyone?
Face it, pal: You have a religious belief.
It's called Global Warming.
I know how important Global Warming is to you. Here's an article you are likely to be interested in. PING!
Folk have to wake up to the fact that there is no longer a 'Democratic Party'. The card carrying socialists have spent 25+ years deliberately, systematically infiltrating and taking over the party.
These are extremely ignorant and dangerous people. They will not be swayed by fact, it's all about how they feel and FEAR!
The Sheeple are ignorant, not the lib/socialist party leaders. They know they are lying. But their modus operandi is to play on peoples fears - even when they have to create the phony rationale for those fears first.
If they are able to intimidate enough scientists we will all suffer under their "benign" leadership.
This modus operandi has put more than one totalitarian government in power.
His comments are based on his understanding of the way "research" is conducted in this field. Since he's intimately familiar with the process and is one of the nation's preeminent atmospheric scientists I'll take his word for it, despite your own cheap shots at him.
Amen
I found an earlier article written by Lindzen but it was undated. It sounds like it is from the 1990's. He writes about how 'global warming' became an issue after the end of the Cold War. I found this part regarding Al gore very interesting:
At the same time (1990), political pressures on dissidents from the "popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly admonished "skeptics'' in a lengthy New York Times op-ed piece. In a perverse example of double-speak he associated
the "true believers'' in warming with Galileo. He also referred, in another article, to the summer of 1988 as the Kristallnacht before the warming holocaust.
And further down:
Most recently, I testified at a Senate hearing conducted by Sen. Gore. There was a rather arcane discussion of the water vapor in the upper troposphere. Two years ago, I had pointed out that if the source of water vapor in that region in the tropics was from deep clouds, then surface warming would be accompanied by reduced upper level water vapor. Subsequent research has established that there must be an additional source--widely believed to be ice crystals thrown off by those deep clouds. I noted that that source too probably acts to produce less moisture in a warmer atmosphere. Both processes cause the major feedback process to become negative rather than positive. Sen. Gore asked whether I now rejected my suggestion of two years ago as a major factor. I answered that I did. Gore then called for the recording secretary to note that I had retracted my objections to "global warming.'' In the ensuing argument, involving mostly other participants in the hearing, Gore was told that he was confusing matters. Shortly thereafter, however, Tom Wicker published an article in the New York Times that claimed that I had retracted my opposition to warming and that that warranted immediate action to curb the purported menace. I wrote a letter to the Times indicating that my position had been severely misrepresented, and, after a delay of over a month, my letter was published. Sen. Gore nonetheless claims in his book that I have indeed retracted my scientific objections to the catastrophic warming scenario and also warns others who doubt the scenario that they are hurting humanity.
This guy really sticks his neck out and the 'alarmists' hate him for disagreeing with them.
Yeah, probably funded by Halliburton too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.