Or, Science By Rhetoric As Opposed To Science By Evidence and Learning.
It's like he really believes his word is the last word. Kind of silly considering Lindzen's own record of scientific errors.
What's with encouraging people to embrace ignorance and just ignore the whole thing?
Where does he place a "citizen's right to be informed and to learn" among his value-set?
Does he actually believe we should all just fall into step with his faith in No-Worries?
With that intro let's examine Lindzen's short video. . .
01 - If one asks about, is the temperature increases or decreasing, it's always doing one or the other, I have no concern about that. By asking people to worry about whether it's going up or down you're immediately establishing dishonesty.
0:25 - The earth is always changing, climate changes, nothing you have to prove uh... it always is happening, always has happened, so to make that into something alarming seems to me little bit weird.
0:43 - Sea level is a hard thing to measure actually, at any given place traditionally sea level was measured by what are called tide gauges, a stick in the water basically and two things change what a tide gauge shows, the land moving up and down, and the sea moving up and down. most places its the land that is the biggest effect, so you don't have a good measure of sea level rise.
1:13 - on the other hand uh... for the last thirty years or so we've had satellite measurements that are actually measuring sea level. uh... it's very hard to relate these two measurements to each other. They are measuring different things. The general feeling is there is no evidence that it's different now than it has been for the last few thousand years. It's been slowly rising ever since the initial rapid rise after the deglaciation twelve thousand years ago.1:47 - The claim that we've suddenly seen a big change in that, given we've changed the instrumentation and give the error bars cover the difference, is uh... not entirely fair, and to suggest that what's been going on for thousands of years is something we should suddenly be alarmed at uh... also doesn't seem reasonable.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
FAQ 5.1 Is Sea Level Rising?Frequently Asked Question 5.1Is Sea Level Rising?
Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.- - -
FAQ 5.1, Figure 1. Time series of global mean sea level (deviation from the 1980-1999 mean) in the past and as projected for the future. For the period before 1870, global measurements of sea level are not available. The grey shading shows the uncertainty in the estimated long-term rate of sea level change (Section 6.4.3). The red line is a reconstruction of global mean sea level from tide gauges (Section 188.8.131.52), and the red shading denotes the range of variations from a smooth curve. The green line shows global mean sea level observed from satellite altimetry. The blue shading represents the range of model projections for the SRES A1B scenario for the 21st century, relative to the 1980 to 1999 mean, and has been calculated independently from the observations. Beyond 2100, the projections are increasingly dependent on the emissions scenario (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of sea level rise projections for other scenarios considered in this report). Over many centuries or millennia, sea level could rise by several metres (Section 10.7.4).
2:10 - when you hear of Ban Ki-moon saying life as we know it will cease if we don't do something. What is he referring to, i don't know. I mean man is adaptable uh... people retire to the sunbelt not to the northwest territories canada. local catastrophes certainly occur they have many causes of which global warming is one of the least.
2:40 - There are so many interesting questions in climate, we still do not have a complete handle on why we had ice ages. You know if you want to be concerned you wanna disaster having too miles of ice on your head is problematic, and the Earth has had that. It's very much a matter of the unchallengeable assertion.
3:00 - All religions have dogmas, dogmas's are not proven statements, they are assertions that cannot be challenged. It doesn't mean they are false and i'm not even suggesting that. I'm simply suggesting that it's a bad idea to have anything that can't be challenged and
As for religion and dogmatically clinging to one's faith, regardless of what the mounting evidence is showing you - well that sure describes the "free corporate market" mentality. The mentality that still allows people to view our planet and it's biosphere as some sort of enemy, only worth plundering till there's nothing's left.
3:25 - and the trouble is, all of us scientists are government employees even if we are working for private universities all research is supported by the government. So as such we're very sensitive to what politicians say and believe. It's a shortcoming. You have to figure out how to fund science in a way that there are no incentives to artificially promoting things.
4:00 - you know when you hear for instance a scientist saying the science is settled, you know that person has stepped out of the science. So, you know, I think that registers with ordinary people and whenever you to see someone say you know instead of answering arguments uh... how could so many people agree if it weren't true, it should be a red flag.
See: Conscious Climate: Discovery of The Greenhouse Effect
See: Global warming and the future of storms
4:28 - My view is one that's conflated the trivial, which is that temperatures changing, climate is changing, man play some role, there's not much disagreement with predictions of disaster that are not connected clearly to warming or our activities or to anything else, and leaving people with the thought that uh... if the first part is true, the second part must be true and it is certainly not the case and then to add insult to injury to propose policies that would have nothing to do with any of it but involve trillions of dollars and harm to many people, is I think uh... crossing a line.