MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen's 48-page Congressional Testimony: 'Increase in CO2 .....

ClimateDepot ^ | November 17, 2010 | Dr. Richard Lindzen testimony

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen's 48-page Congressional Testimony: 'Increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming' -- 'Data is being analyzed with aim of supporting, rather than testing models' Visit Site 

[TigersEye]

Yes, it has, consistently. Some of the graphs that go back hundreds of millions of years show wild variability between temperature and CO2 levels such that they have moved in opposite directions at times. That puts any connection at all, that CO2 leads or follows temps, in doubt.

Rather than post it again on this thread here is a link to a few choice articles that put both warming and the Greenhouse Theory itself in extreme doubt.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"Hard to believe that we are only just now starting to analyze the changes in non-visible light during the solar cycle."

Its "hard to believe" because it not true - solar spectral analysis is an old, old field as such things go.

It is true that since we have been making extra-atmospheric observations we are "fine tuning" our understanding, and some of the results are very interesting and even counter-intuitive - for example do a search on:

"Joanna Haigh" "An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate"

But none of this has substantially altered our understanding of short-term (centuries long) climate change.

[justa-hairyape]

But none of this has substantially altered our understanding of short-term (centuries long) climate change.

It is impossible to understand short term, mid term or long term climate change on Earth without understanding all the physical interactions between the Sun and Earth. Absolutely impossible. So you do not know much about Climate Change right now. Which of course explains why almost all the warming predictions have been falsified. But hey, that is the difficult road to take. The road that causes lots of headaches. Some apparently prefer to just pretend to know everything.

If you are no longer being surprised by science, you are no longer doing science.

[justa-hairyape]

Its "hard to believe" because it not true - solar spectral analysis is an old, old field as such things go.

Missed this. Yes. The knowledge has been available to the Climate Change community for decades. Yet they continued to ignore serious investigations into the affects of non-visible light (electromagnetic radiation). That is either dumb or disingenuous. I know what the problem is. Dealt with it personally trying to educate the masses about another aspect of spectral qualities. Was like pounding a concrete wall with your fists. Took years to finally sink into the skulls full of mush. Now considered common knowledge in my field.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I don't even believe that ("It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.") is true. The well established science of physics casts extreme doubt on that conclusion.

And your problem with the physics is.... what, exactly?

Here you have someone who is largely on your side of this debate.

One of the few critics of the "consensus view" who has scientific credentials so incontestable that other scientists who think he's often wrong on climate change regularly take his concerns seriously enough to investigate them in detail.

Someone who is actually a leading authority on atmospheric physics and chemistry.

And you believe that he's wrong on the "well established physics"?

[Marine_Uncle]

Read the PDF. As expected. There is no global warming of any significance happening. Especially as related to the AGW crowd’s claims.

[Publius6961]

I wonder how much CO2 this windbag expelled during his 48 pages of testimony?

I can't answer that until I see your credentials, experience and honors and compare them to Lindzen's.

Doesn't take much experience, common sense or even brains to engage in name-calling.

[TigersEye]

And you believe that he's wrong on the "well established physics"?

He didn't cite the "well established physics" I did.

[Publius6961]

that there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress such opinion ought to keep in mind - the reason you don't see more such studies is that there aren't many such questions being raised.

Or, we might add, a dearth of true scientists competent and ethical enough to pursue such questions.

Dogmatic AGW acolytes need not apply.

[Miss_Meyet]

In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen — including policymakers – do not actually know what the scientific debate is about.

Could that possibly be because there is no real scientific debate? Sorry, but defending an absurd forgone conclusion is scarcely scientific.

Thanks, Ernest_at_the_Beach!

[Wuli]

ping