you are one of few posters on this thread who are the only climate change deniers. what is your motivation in making such ignorant comments about a respected scientist.
How pathetic, a simple look at wiki demnostrates the bold faced stupidity of your libelous post.
From en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Views on climate change: He has long opposed the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming. [58] In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said: [59]
We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.
In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and concludes that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were [60]
Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, [61] "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." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. [61] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, [7] and offered more support in a 2009 paper, [47] but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article. [61] Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." [61]
In the same interview, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science." He further explained: "If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something." [61] |
