He says the issue is unresolved, and is not supported one way or the other. The same view held by Dr. Judith Curry and many others.Funny thing is nowhere in that op-ed does he forward an alternate theory or even deny the impact of CO2. All he does is criticizes the IPCC and the 'alarmists'.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/As with many things in science, there is still significant uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, and different approaches can obtain fairly different results. However, the longer the current slow-down continues, the more questions will arise about whether GCMs are getting either multi-decadal variability or climate sensitivity wrong.
What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.
Yes, really.Really?
No, just fudged data and reserach for political reasons.I don't have a conspiracy theory that says information is being repressed.
I would, however, say that the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers minimized results that the IPCC didn't like (eg., the empirical evidence about what has actually happened to the Earth's temperature) while substantially overplaying the IPCC's confidence in its computer model forecasts.
No, perhaps you can provide a link.Yes, really.
The comment about people being criticized as being "anti-science" or "deniers" has nothing to do with information being repressed by the IPCC (although I certainly do think certain empirical results were minimized in the AR5 report). It is about the attempts in the public realm to try to shout down anyone who questions the IPCC or the global warming agenda.
If you wish, I can easily find evidence of Michael Mann and others referring to critics of their work as "deniers." Perhaps you have also heard of President Obama's claims that anyone who disagrees with his view must be a member of the Flat Earth society?
I believe there have been comments posted in this thread that falsely assert that I believe "Creationism is science."
The point about "anti-science", "deniers", etc., is about the public debate, not the IPCC's activist agenda.
Ah, paid lobbyist and consultant Lindzen in a 4 year old article about stolen emails which was investigated by 8 independent inquiries each one finding all claims against to be false.Here you go:
Climate Science In Denial
Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.
By Richard S. Lindzen
Updated April 22, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and even startling.
.
Sure, we can say that you believe this and the oil industry lobby pushes it.Nice dodge. What they refute -- unequivocally -- is your false (almost fairy tale-like) claim that it is only me that thinks the IPCC is driven by a political and activist agenda.
You may disagree. But it is a very widely held view. Not a "conspiracy theory" at all.
Yes, and I stand by that claim.I believe there have been comments posted in this thread that falsely assert that I believe "Creationism is science."
LoLI suspect more people than who take you seriously, especially after your contribution 300 posts ago. If that's the sum total you have to contribute to this thread, then it's time to get back in your suitcase
You still think that the IPCC is preventing scientists from reaching other conclusions so yes, you are a conspiracy theorist.Yes, really.
....
Wrong. He's a lobbyist who should be listened to unlike the IPCC who should be ignored because they are lobbyists.MF, the author of you WSJ article is another Heartland affiliate plus a member of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, heavily funded by Exxon. There are other affiliations with big business and Republicans think tanks, but i'll stop there as it's clear he is bought and paid for.
Yeah, we know ... you think it's "ridiculous" to think that empirical evidence is more important than horribly flawed computer model predictions. It makes me nostalgic for the days when people believed in evidence-based conclusions.(sorry, I just had to try a ridiculous argument like MF)
The models are compared to empirical evidence to see which is closer to reality, including models with no CO2 increases and ones with.Yeah, we know ... you think it's "ridiculous" to think that empirical evidence is more important than horribly flawed computer model predictions.
No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't change that no one has come up with a scientific theory that claims CO2 isn't the major driving factor of climate change.Yeah, we know ... you think it's "ridiculous" to think that empirical evidence...
That's pretty funny coming from the guy who cites dishonest poll results from eco activists as "evidence" that research has been replicated.The fact that you have diminished you 'scientific' argument to rely on gallop polls clearly shows how little interest you have in science.
This is the first time I've heard the argument that the Industrial Revolution began 4.5 billion years ago. I didn't think man had been on the planet nearly that long.No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't change that no one has come up with a scientific theory that claims CO2 isn't the major driving factor of climate change.
Huh? There have been any number of papers that have suggested alternatives. And most of them have more basis in fact than anything that even mentions CO2.No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't change that no one has come up with a scientific theory that claims CO2 isn't the major driving factor of climate change.
You posted this poll before. This is the same public that consist of 25% who think Obama is a muslim or that he's not an American.Yeah, we know ... you think it's "ridiculous" to think that empirical evidence is more important than horribly flawed computer model predictions. It makes me nostalgic for the days when people believed in evidence-based conclusions.
Fortunately, the public may be more savvy than the IPCC ever imagined:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
Straw man #1.That's pretty funny coming from the guy who cites dishonest poll results from eco activists as "evidence" that research has been replicated.
