Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Posted on 12/26/2015 9:02:07 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Really had to chop up the title to get within the word limit.
fyi
FOOLS defending FOOLS
There is no man made global warming and there has always been and always will be climate change...also not man made!!!
Definition of “sophistry” -
: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false
: a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false
There is no redeeming social benefit anywhere for the attribution of global warming (or cooling, for that matter) to anthropogenic sources. Locally, human activity may cause things like dirty water or dirty air, or acute problems with distribution, but the overall patterns of the equations of heat gain and loss exist apart from and independent of the actions of mankind.
Or charlatans defending charlatans, or maybe fools defending charlatans, or even charlatans defending fools.
Global Warming, its not the validity of the argument but the Volume that seems to matter.
Bookmark
47 thoughts on “Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarmâ€
************************************************************
daveandrews723 says:
But those 8 scientists are “saving the worldâ€, don’t yuo know? Just ask them. Oh, and they have also built very nice careers for themselves with the HUGE increases in climate science grants over the past couple of decades. Those junkets to Paris, Copenhagen, etc. aren’t cheap. But only a cynic (skeptic) would accuse them of putting their egos and self-interest ahead of science.
************************
Santa Baby says:
No they are not saving the World. They are in fact destroying the World in order to save Marxism?
***************************************************
Goldrider says:
Soooo . . . let’s write a rebuttal and dispute them, point by point. That’s what it’s going to take for the average newsbag to start dismissing this stuff as the sophistry it is.
******************************************************
jayhd says:
“limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate scienceâ€
What is “climate science� From what I have read and observed, most of the climate scientists who perpetuate the AGW hoax are anything but scientists. Pre-eminent among them is Michael Mann, who refuses to release his data and methodology. Mann has no problem suing those who disagree with him, but refuses to answer interrogatories from those he is suing. And rather than debate the merits of their science and findings, the AGW proponents resort to name calling, personal attacks and attempt to stifle debate on the subject through legislative and governmental decree. So to me, “climate science†is on par with astrology and phrenology. In other words, it’s not science.
***************************************************************
Save
*************************************EXCERPTS********************************
David L. Hagen says:
Lindzen eloquently exposes the “climate shmexpertsâ€! See Marc Fitch Shmexperts: How Ideology and Power Politics are Disguised as Science
We are constantly bombarded with studies and so-called expert opinions that are contradictory, controversial, and ineffective
Fitch explains why we need to apply common sense critical thinking to sift the “wheat from chaff†in such exchanges.
The Younger Dryas evidence Lindzen cites is expertly addressed by Don Easterbrook.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
That's a little overboard. I don't recall astrologists or phrenologists acting like bratty spoiled children when someone disagrees with them. Nor have they acted like fascists trying to use the power of government to punish those who do.
By the time the ice accumulates enough to notice via thousands of year old proxies, the civilization is already wiped out. First comes the weather change, then comes the collapse of civilization, followed years later by the ice accumulation. The weather changes are already beginning. The curved and collapsed jet stream. Bringing a blizzard to New Mexico right now.
I agree.
The current MIT administration should pay more attention to Prof. Lindzen, their former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology who retired in 2013 than to the eight MIT authors whose article Lindzen effectively critiques. The MIT administration appears to favor the anthropogenic global warming / climate change hypothesis and the need to take action to stop possible deleterious effects of global warming. At least, that is my assessment of their communications to alumni like myself. If I'm correct, they are putting MIT's scientific reputation at substantial risk of having succumb to scientific sophistry.
we’re in
PHX, just finished being at an outside Mall, It’s CHILLY KOLD out.
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.