#6 clouds, vapor, Iris Effect - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

This is the sixth part of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider professor Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness regarding his pet theory, clouds and "the iris effect" vs. what the science is discovering.

part  one (the "real" questions)

part  two (the conspiracy)

part  three (the government driving AGW)

part  four (Nature in balance?)

part  five (spurious feedback mechanisms)

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein

Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (RL) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.

3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

________________________________________________

44:40  Lindzen: Remember the temperature at the equator has been pretty much the same as within a couple degrees for billions of years.  How much more stable do you want it?

~ ~ ~ 

That's not true.  Besides his train of logic is misleading.  

Equatorial heat being relatively stable is the product of evaporation and circulation patterns carrying the heat, (that's always streaming straight down on equatorial waters), out and away from the tropics and dissipating it onto the rest of the globe - it isn't any indication of some preordained global stability.  

~ ~ ~ 

TROPIC OCEANS HELP SCIENTISTS IN CLIMATE STUDY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY RECORD  March 4, 1994  Vol. 19 No. 19

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol19/vol19_iss19/record1919.21

Tropical ocean waters - long thought to have remained unaffected by Earth's past climate changes - may have cooled by 5C (9F) during the last ice age, scientists at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reported recently.

 The research, reported in the Feb. 4 issue of "Science," indicates 
 that tropical regions play a pivotal and previously underestimated 
 role in regulating Earth's climate.

~ ~ ~

OLDEST ICE CORE FROM THE TROPICS RECOVERED, NEW ICE AGE EVIDENCE, 12/3/98

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sajama.htm

Lonnie Thompson, professor of geological sciences and research scientist with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, said that the new cores are the best evidence yet that the tropics were much cooler during the last glacial stage.

~ ~ ~

On top of that, in Lindzen's zeal to oversimplify he never mentions complicating factors that will have major impacts, such as:

Rising Temperature Difference Between Hemispheres Could Dramatically Shift Rainfall Patterns in Tropics  |  Science Daily

Apr. 2, 2013 — One often ignored consequence of global climate change is that the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere, which could significantly alter tropical precipitation ... full story

________________________________________________

45:50  Alex: Alright, it's amazingly stable, but I mean there are many physical properties of things that are stable too,  but they don't have a goal per se.  Like a living being, if it's not evolved to self regulate in that way. 

Lindzen:  No, I mean presumably if they haven't exist the planet wouldn't have survived, so it's a matter of selection.

~ ~ ~

This is a bit obtuse, is the professor really attributing Earth's "survival" to Darwinian selection?  Hmmm, nothing is off limits for his game of confusion, is it?  I wonder how Mars and Venus managed to survive?

#7/7 environmentalism and environmentalists - Dissecting Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

This is where it all started nearly three weeks ago.  Now, with a few adjustments, it's the final chapter of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I took the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this final installment we consider professor Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness regarding environmentalism and environmentalists.

part one (the "real" questions)

part two (the conspiracy)

part three (the government driving AGW)

part four (Nature in balance?)

part five (spurious feedback mechanisms)

part six (Iris Effect, clouds and vapor)

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein

Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (RL) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.

3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

____________________________________________________

59:35 Lindzen: ... you're touching on something interesting, which is environmentalism, whatever it's nastiness and ugliness, it is largely an urban phenomena.  And I think it really, really depends on people having no sense of what nature is at all.

~ ~ ~
What an astoundingly hostile and ignorant thing to say.  

"Environmentalism" is a term defining an attitude towards recognizing the biological webs that sustain our planet's life support system - also known as our biosphere.

It's not a people, nor a party - but Lindzen won't allow himself to recognize that.  All he sees is enemies. 

Listen to Lindzen going straight for the jugular:
 "environmentalism = nastiness and ugliness"
Earlier it was likened to Eugenics, I'll admit, it's impossible for me to fathom the malicious mind that can conceive such an absurd connection.  

There's nothing rational about it, it's political theater and hate mongering for votes and profit, nothing more. 

Consider for a moment what "Environmentalism" actually is:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/189205/environmentalism

"environmentalism, political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities; through the adoption of forms of political, economic, and social organization that are thought to be necessary for, or at least conducive to, the benign treatment of the environment by humans; and through a reassessment of humanity’s relationship with nature. 
In various ways, environmentalism claims that living things other than humans, and the natural environment as a whole, are deserving of consideration in reasoning about the morality of political, economic, and social policies."

Why is that seen as such a threat???
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

57:00 Lindzen: It depends on attracting people for whom nature itself is almost a meaningless concept, and they'll believe anything.

Lindzen, Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria 1of3 - Anatomy of a Con Job

{edited June 10th AM - for typos } 

"Citizenschallenge, you are the one who chose to make personal attacks and dishonest ad hominems about James Taylor*, The Heartland Institute and the scientists in his article.  

You want videos from climate scientists? No problem,Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw 

How many more do you want? I know you have been brainwashed to not believe there are highly credentialed scientists who do not support your position on climate change but please don’t make it so obvious."

*He's referring to "James Taylor Caught Doctoring the '97-Percent Consensus' Claims"  http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-taylor-caught-doctoring-97.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

With that invitation I took up the video:

#3 Government is driving AGW - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

 This is the third part (link to part one, part two) of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider Alex and Lindzen's conviction that climate science is all a government plot of some kind.  Oh yeah, to rob us of our freedoms.  As if the developing AGW driven climate change we've allowed isn't going to radically curtail freedoms we take for granted today, over this next couple decades.  

_____________________________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen 

October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein

Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (R.L.) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority. ...

3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

_____________________________________________________

15:30  Alex:  What set the direction of climate science in the past before this whole government hierarchy?

~ ~ ~ 
CC:  Originally?   
How about curiosity to understand why we had ice ages and tropical hot house ages on this planet through deep time.  

There was also the obvious purely utilitarian desire, if not need, to understand what drives global weather patterns… {wasn't there professor?}  

Focusing on some vague "government hierarchy" is a game of fabricating political enemies. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

15:40  Lindzen:  "Oh, you know, there were problems that had come up.  Probably the most interesting problem was the ice age cycle, you had theories there and they were argued and tested.  There was the climate program of the 70s.  Ah as the paleo records become clearer. The Eocene was a fascinating climate period and people were trying to understand that.

~ ~ ~ 
What bothers me about Lindzen's calculated obtuseness is that he never acknowledges the pivotal role weather plays in our lives.  

Isn't it self-evident that, of course, many people, for many reasons, needed to learn as much as possible about weather?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lindzen: I mean it was very much a matter of, here are things that we see, how did that happen, how did it work.

~ ~ ~ 
Student's and scientist's desire to learn and understand remains as strong and passionate as ever!  But, you'd have to actually listen to them to know that.

I'd suggest the critically huge change over the past half century has been, our citizen's no longer demand honesty from information sources, and the Republican/libertarian PR machine has fully embraced repetition of lies, stonewalling and rejection of learning as a political strategy. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lindzen's slander as weapon for scientific persuasion.

{updated with some information regarding the interviewer and his for profit "think tank" 3/8/15}

Now I get to one of the architects and a Godfather of 'slander as a weapon for scientific persuasion' and profit, Dr. Richard Lindzen.  

I submit this text-book example of why he deserves that honorific.  I found it in one of Dr. Dessler's video shorts, though the original is from an interview at the Center for Industrial Progress' "Power Hour."  This is only 2:20 minutes long, but it says plenty.

Lindzen talks about environmentalists (there is no visual)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtIL3sEG4bM

dessler2

____________________________________________________

0:00 Lindzen: ... you're touching on something interesting, which is environmentalism, whatever it's nastiness and ugliness, it is largely an urban phenomena.  And I think it really, really depends on people having no sense of what nature is at all.

~ ~ ~

What an astoundingly hostile and ignorant thing to say. 

"Environmentalism" is a term defining an attitude towards recognizing the biological webs that sustain our planet's life support system - also known as our biosphere.

It's not a people, nor a party - but Lindzen won't allow himself to recognize that.  All he sees is enemies. 

Listen to Lindzen going straight for the jugular:

 "environmentalism = nastiness and ugliness"  

There's nothing rational about it, it's political theater and hate mongering for votes and profit, nothing more. 

Consider for a moment what "Environmentalism" actually is:

#6 Debating Republican Disconnect From Climate Science - Model substance + contrarian scientists

After my dialogue with EM I share links to information relating to the substance of climate models, then a hard look at some renowned scientists who have become climate science contrarians for hire, Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy.  

_____________________________________________________________ 

EM writes:  I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time.  I’m sure you’ll give me the “bull shit!” response, but this is not at all a bullshit statement.

___________________________________________

What you have proffered is feigned agreement with the obvious.  What makes it feel disingenuous is your “we don’t fully understand” - That argument can be applied to anything and everything (except religion with it’s blinding self-certainties, although that’s about the landscape of the human mind and ego rather than physical realities.  -  Or would you disagree?).

To retain a bit of added truthiness, you toss in “long period of time” - What’s that mean?  How long?  What uncertainties?  EM, can you explain why do those uncertainties concern you more than what’s known for certain?  Simply implying that there might be game changing uncertainties out there without offering anything is what could politely be called disingenuous.

_____________________________________________________________

EM writes:  Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades. 

___________________________________________

Nearly two centuries is not relatively new!  I’ve already addressed this misleading Republican meme with a list of climate science milestones: 

4. Debating Republican Disconnect From - Climate Science History

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/01/4-gop-disconnect-climate-science-history.html

Beyond that, I don’t think EM appreciates how consistent the long development of climate science has been.  I learned about the fundamentals more than forty years ago and nothing has changed radically.  Refinements of understand, sure, non-stop, and sometimes startling “why didn’t I think of that” surprises.  But, at the end of the day, it’s all been amazingly consistent and new pieces keep fitting into the whole of our understanding with logical consistency and even harmony.  

If I’m mistaken, or you think I’m misleading, show me.

_____________________________________________________________

#1-Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - The Question

#1  "The Real Questions" according to Dr. Lindzen

My previous review was of the last two and half minutes of an interview by Alex Epstein with Dr. Lindzen.  Now that I've been introduced to the whole thing and had a chance to listen to it, it seems like all of it deserves some scrutiny.  So I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it.

My intention is to review Lindzen's words and juxtapose his version of science with the real thing.  I'm going to break this up into smaller sections.  This one covering "the real questions" according to Richard Lindzen. 

________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.
I remember he was on this show last time, despite all his credentials the number one thing he encouraged was for people to do the research, look into things themselves. ... and I really consider that a very good indication for the quality of scientist and the quality of person someone is. ...  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions.  For instance in these public consensus statements and so on, it's always is there agreement that CO2 plays a roll, or climate changes and so on.  These are things which in fact everyone agrees on.
Those are not the questions in dispute.
And yet it's presented as though if there's agreement that climate has changed, ahh, we should do something about it.

~ ~ ~ 

This is superficial silliness.  The issue has nothing to do with "climate has changed" - the consensus statements are about our manmade emissions of greenhouse gases significantly altering our atmosphere.  
- - -

Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/20/why-we-need-to-talk-about-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

- - -

The agreements acknowledge the obvious: If we warm up our Earth's global heat and moisture distribution engine it will create more intense weather and disrupt natural systems that have been tens of thousands of years in the making.  This will lead to increasing problems for humanity and everything else.

As our climate changes, the risk of injury, illness, and death from the resulting heat waves, wildfires, intense storms, and floods rises. 

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/health.html 

Scientists and economists are beginning to grapple with the serious economic and environmental consequences if we fail to reduce global carbon emissions quickly and deeply. The most expensive thing we can do is nothing. 

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/economy.html

_________________________________

Lindzen: The real questions are, you know change is normal, it always occurs, is there anything unusual, 

Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer

Or, Science By Rhetoric As Opposed To Science By Evidence and Learning.

Based on the YouTube video short "Lindzen - Why you should not worry"

After watching this video, I went through the comments and discovered that Dr. Lindzen and the fiction writer Michael Crichton were pals.  What an interesting insight, the cynical scientist and the master of science fiction story telling.  Given Lindzen's performance in this video, and every other one I've watched, I can see how the pupil learned his lessons well.  

Look at this, or any other, YouTube performance of Dr. Lindzen mocking climatologists and you will see echoes of rhetoric over evidence reinforced by drama substituting for substance.  Hallmarks of the successful science fiction fantasist.  

But, Dr. Lindzen, what does that have to do with understanding what is happening within our atmosphere and the greater global heat distribution engine?

I wish I could ask Dr. Lindzen a few questions such as, please explain why he ignores so much important Earth observation information in his various performances?

#4 Nature in Balance? - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

{final edit Sunday evening}

This is the fourth part of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider Alex and Lindzen's confusion regarding what environmentalists mean when they discuss the "Balance of Nature".

{ link to part one (the "real" questions), part two (the conspiracy), part three (the government driving AGW) }

_______________________________________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen 

Alex Epstein | October 22, 2012 | Episode 31

Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority. 

3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

__________________________________________________________

26:30  Lindzen:  ... I think with eugenics it was.  You know, eugenics is the environmentalism of the first third of the twentieth century.
37:05  Alex: I guess there's this negative disposition in environmentalism towards man changing any part of nature as such. 

~ ~ ~

Please stop.  We can always find extremists who believe extreme thoughts, so let's forget the strawman.   

Believe it or not, "environmentalists" live in this real world.    We appreciate that the act of living requires us to take from the "natural" world around us.  We love our modern comforts as much as anyone, although we do have lower expectations for what it takes to satisfy our respective comfort levels.  

What makes us so threatening?  Is it that we have a visceral/spiritual connection to the open lands and oceans and clouds flying through our skies?  Is it our attitude of minimalism over gluttony?  Is it that we believe people need to live with less material expectations? 

And what is it that makes "Environmentalism" so incomprehensible to Republican/libertarian types?  

What's wrong with appreciating the Earth around us, the natural world, it's wonders and critters, accepting them as real entities that deserve our respect and striving to understand and nurture?

What's wrong with appreciating that every economic transaction, besides it's benefits, includes costs and destruction, thus contains a moral dimension - and that those equations need to be recognized as we conduct our lives and business? 

____________________________________

Alex: And then the idea that he could be impacting the climate in any degree is considered morally wrong.

~ ~ ~

The "morally wrong" has to do with degrading the physical planet our children (and other creatures) are depending on!

What Alex doesn't appreciate is that humanity and our society has grown up within, and adapted to, a biosphere that's a direct result of the weather patterns produced within a specific and most advantageous climate regime (equilibrium plateau) that Earth had settled into quite recently in it's billions of years long history.

What Alex won't face is that we are supercharging that climate system (think, global heat and moisture distribution engine) back into a hothouse Earth, with serious weather pattern alterations inevitable.  These alterations will seriously disrupt the operation of our complex modern society.  As we are already getting a foretaste of.

http://www.climatehotmap.org

____________________________________

37:35 Lindzen:  I think you've got an important point there. 

Lindzen, Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria 2of3 - Anatomy of a Con Job

{edited June 10th AM - for typos } 

"Citizenschallenge, you are the one who chose to make personal attacks and dishonest ad hominems about James Taylor*, The Heartland Institute and the scientists in his article.  

You want videos from climate scientists? No problem,Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw 

How many more do you want? I know you have been brainwashed to not believe there are highly credentialed scientists who do not support your position on climate change but please don’t make it so obvious."

*He's referring to "James Taylor Caught Doctoring the '97-Percent Consensus' Claims"  http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-taylor-caught-doctoring-97.html

With that invitation I took up the video, it turned into a huge project that needs to get split between three posts.  Here is the second installment. Lindzen's 2009 Competitive Enterprise Institute is at my first installment. Lindzens words are in courier font.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

#2 The Conspiracy - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

#2  "government created monopoly" and further conspiracy ideation

{slight editing 3/13/15 noon}

 This is the second part (link to first one) of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider the possibility that 'alarmists' aren't all in on a grand conspiracy to take away your freedoms and that they are alarmed for good reasons.

_____________________________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein

Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (R.L.) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority. ...

3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

________________________________

5:00  Alex:  ... how science has become much more institutionalized, as you describe it reminded me of a government created monopoly.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Government created monopoly on climate science?  And he seriously believes it.  Can't leave the conspiracy ideation alone.  

… Here are the six characteristics associated with conspiracist ideation:(https://wickershamsconscience.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/wonkery-conspiracy-ideation-and-science/) 

• The folks behind any conspiracy are always nefarious. There aren’t any conspiracies for good purposes, only bad purposes.

• The person claiming there is a conspiracy typically considers herself, at least tacitly, to be the brave antagonist of the nefarious intentions of the conspiracy; that is, the victim is also a potential hero.

• The conspiracy theorist refuses to believe anything that does not fit into the conspiracy theory. Thus, nothing is at it seems, and all evidence points to hidden agendas or some other meaning that only the conspiracy theorist understands.

• Nothing happens by accident. Small random events are woven into a conspiracy narrative and reinterpreted as indisputable evidence for the theory.

• The underlying lack of trust and exaggerated suspicion contribute to a cognitive pattern whereby specific hypotheses may be abandoned when they become unsustainable, but those corrections do not impinge on the overall abstraction that ‘something must be wrong’ and the ‘official’ account must be based on deception. Princess Diana was murdered and Princess Diana faked her own death.

• Contrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy. This ideation relies on the notion that, the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (“self-sealing reasoning”).

Also see: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/what-happens-when-you-study-conspiracy-theories-the-conspiracy-theorists-make-up-conspiracy-theories-about-you/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What Alex ignores is that these developments (see the end of this post for a list of major Environmental Acts of the twentieth century) were driven by accumulating knowledge at the insistence of an informed electorate.  

It was demanded by "We The People" with US Reps. grudgingly bowing to the people's will.  Aren't we a democracy?

Timeline: The Modern Environmental Movement

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/

- - -

As for Alex's loathed 'climate science' bureaucracy, come on, get real. it's no different than what's happened within every other human endeavor over this past half century - that's the price of unrestrained population growth and breakneck progress.  

#5 Spurious feedback - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness -

This is the fifth part of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider professor Lindzen's obtuse misrepresentation of climate feedback mechanisms.

{ link to part one (the "real" questions), part two (the conspiracy), part three (the government driving AGW), part four (Nature in Balance?) }

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein

Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:

• Questions about climate
• “Balance” in nature
• The goals of environmentalists

1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (RL) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.

3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

________________________________________________

44:30  Lindzen:  In the models used for projecting alarm,the system is riddled with positive feedbacks, were whatever man does is amplified.  

~ ~ ~
Never any attempt to teach anything, it's just a flood of negative opining that we are supposed to accept because the dear professor says so.

And always with the doubt-mongering: "models used for projecting alarm"  Lindzen never acknowledges that the ever improving models are reflecting our real world phenomena plenty accurate and it's the situation, not the models, that is alarming!
- - -
Professor Lindzen wants us to ignore that it's down to Earth observations and not "climate models" that make us sure:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Climate change: How do we know?

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Sea level rise

Global temperature rise

Warming oceans

Shrinking ice sheets

Declining Arctic sea ice

Glacial retreat

Extreme events

Ocean acidification

Decreased snow cover

They neglected to mention the "Declining Antarctic glaciers"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2pYHMx5bN8

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83672

________________________________________________

Lindzen:  For example, if you just double CO2 and had no feedbacks, and no stabilizing elements, you'd get about a degree of warming. That frankly no one really worries about. 

~ ~ ~
Obtuse like a fox.