Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

[kallend 2,113]

See post #80 of this thread (for example). And resorting to vulgarity doesn't make you appear smart, quite the reverse.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[futuredivot 0]

Reread 80-took a few minutes to rescan most of the thread. I'm still right, you're still cherry picking and avoiding actually SAYING anything.

And, Skippy, they're gonna have to develop a whole new math to define how little your opinion of me affects my life. you're just a self absorbed liberal bobble head that I shake when I get bored.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Reread 80-took a few minutes to rescan most of the thread. I'm still right, you're still cherry picking and avoiding actually SAYING anything.

And, Skippy, they're gonna have to develop a whole new math to define how little your opinion of me affects my life. you're just a self absorbed liberal bobble head that I shake when I get bored.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The article in the OP was not a peer reviewed article by Lindtzen, it was a right wing opinion piece by Dianna Cotter, who is the one guilty of cherry picking..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Reread 80-took a few minutes to rescan most of the thread. I'm still right, you're still cherry picking and avoiding actually SAYING anything.

And, Skippy, they're gonna have to develop a whole new math to define how little your opinion of me affects my life. you're just a self absorbed liberal bobble head that I shake when I get bored.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The article in the OP was not a peer reviewed article by Lindtzen, it was a right wing opinion piece by Dianna Cotter, who is the one guilty of cherry picking..

Crap kallend, in the OP it was never stated that IT was a peer reviewed paper. I stated they were linked to ..

WFJ

Again I ask you. what about his published reviewed papers? I listed them. How many you got? List them. And those he has supported.

His qualifcations dwarf anybody here and make Hansen (who really has none) look like a boob. A bood whos opinions you support ONLY because you happen to agree with him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Crap kallend, in the OP it was never stated that IT was a peer reviewed paper. I stated they were linked to ..

Except that they aren't linked to. The only thing linked to at the examiner site is a pamphlet put out by SPPI which, unfortunately fails to fully cite which of Lindzen's papers they're pulling this from.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Crap kallend, in the OP it was never stated that IT was a peer reviewed paper. I stated they were linked to ..

Except that they aren't linked to. The only thing linked to at the examiner site is a pamphlet put out by SPPI which, unfortunately fails to fully cite which of Lindzen's papers they're pulling this from.

there is a list of over 200 published papers early one. You want I should link to all of them? Or are you able to find the ones you are interested in?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[redlegphi 0]

I want you to link to the one that was brought up in the original post. The one that caused the people at the examiner website to (incorrectly) summarize that CO2 has no effect on the climate. THAT paper isn't one of the 200+ that you posted. You keep whining that kallend is arguing against the professor's credibility instead of the data, but I'm pretty sure you haven't even seen the data since you keep referring us back to sites and lists that do NOT contain the paper you're talking about.

[mnealtx 0]

Are you going to demand kallend provide proof, as well?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Maybe the paper has no observational data. Perhaps Lidzen merely predicted what raw observational data will show. Or at least what the data will show if it knows what's good for it.

Let's just call Lindzen's presentation a "model" and make whatever changes to society are necessary on the basis thereof. The sky is not falling - Lindzen gave irrefutable proof that it may be floating away! We must do something now to secure our atmosphere. Without an atmosphere nobody could hear the messages of doom!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Are you going to demand kallend provide proof, as well?

Kallend stipulated that there won't be proof of the models' accuracy for a very long time - and similarly no validation or invalidation will happen for a very long time, if ever.
Red hasn't explicitly stated it, but has inferred that there is no way to get proof any time soon.

I think your request has already been granted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you going to demand kallend provide proof, as well?

Kallend stipulated that there won't be proof of the models' accuracy for a very long time - and similarly no validation or invalidation will happen for a very long time, if ever.
Red hasn't explicitly stated it, but has inferred that there is no way to get proof any time soon.

I think your request has already been granted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I meant proof of his incessant claims that Lindzen was in the pay of 'big oil' and thus 'rigged' his data.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[redlegphi 0]

From here

Quote

"I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

So he admittedly has taken their money in the past but stated that he no longer does. That's as far as I'm going to go for proof. I have no desire to dig up this guy's tax documents.

[mnealtx 0]

Appreciate it, phi.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

From here

Quote

"I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

So he admittedly has taken their money in the past but stated that he no longer does. That's as far as I'm going to go for proof. I have no desire to dig up this guy's tax documents.

QED.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Are you going to demand kallend provide proof, as well?

Kallend stipulated that there won't be proof of the models' accuracy for a very long time - and similarly no validation or invalidation will happen for a very long time, if ever.
Red hasn't explicitly stated it, but has inferred that there is no way to get proof any time soon.

I think your request has already been granted.

To repeat:

I'm sure better climate models are being developed as we discuss this. Maybe they will be able to predict El Ninos. However the existing models ARE based on known laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, absorbtion spectra, evaporation rates, etc. so in the grand scheme of things they are unlikely to be far wrong when averaged over many decades even if they can't predict if we will have a bad winter in Illinois this year or if the Arctic ice pack will melt more than usual in 2010.

To add: the existing climate models were never designed to predict year to year fluctuations or local weather conditions. Using data from the last decade ONLY is not a valid test of the model. That seems to be what you want to do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you going to demand kallend provide proof, as well?

Kallend stipulated that there won't be proof of the models' accuracy for a very long time - and similarly no validation or invalidation will happen for a very long time, if ever.
Red hasn't explicitly stated it, but has inferred that there is no way to get proof any time soon.

I think your request has already been granted.

To repeat:

I'm sure better climate models are being developed as we discuss this. Maybe they will be able to predict El Ninos. However the existing models ARE based on known laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, absorbtion spectra, evaporation rates, etc. so in the grand scheme of things they are unlikely to be far wrong when averaged over many decades even if they can't predict if we will have a bad winter in Illinois this year or if the Arctic ice pack will melt more than usual in 2010.

To add: the existing climate models were never designed to predict year to year fluctuations or local weather conditions. Using data from the last decade ONLY is not a valid test of the model. That seems to be what you want to do.

So answer me this. If say there are 7 new respected models developed and then run. 4 predict more or continued AGW and 3 indicated man has no effect. Or swicth the numbers.

All are equally respected and reputable researchers. All have Federal funding

What say you in this case?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

From here

Quote

"I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

So he admittedly has taken their money in the past but stated that he no longer does. That's as far as I'm going to go for proof. I have no desire to dig up this guy's tax documents.

QED.

Fucking laughable. You don't need to EVER be speaking of anyone ELSE's impartiality EVER again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,113]

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

Not as well as the search did for NASA. NASA funds more that half of all climate research worldwide (the dominant player) and since the dominant player at the dominant player is Dr. James "Not-stradamus" Hansen we could likely expect to see the department's research and funding focus on AGW.

"Big AGW" is "Big Government." And getting bigger.

If you don't think government can create scares or exploit them and keep them going, see "Red scare" or "Iraq WMD" or "swine flu.". Indeed, there may be Communists in the government - and probably are (I'm talking Big "C" Commies, not the soft "c" versions represented by the Democrat and Republican parties). We likely will eventually find WMD's in Iraq (like in Germany - we'll supply them). And swine flu may yet kill off billions.

But nobody would have supported the Iraq War without bullshit fearmongering. And nobody will supporting dumping billions into H1N1 research without dire predictions of death and mayhem (we're used to the 30 or 40k people dying of seasonal flu in the US every year. Swine flu, though, we have no immunity. No shit - nobody is immune to regaular flu until they get it or are vaccinated).

So AGW activists focus on the extremely unlikely (if the ice caps all melted sea levels would rise enough to wipe out blue states!) Or those 100 degree summer days will be 115 degree summer days. or all creatures cuddly will die off and all creatures yucky will flourish.

How do we stop it, John?

Well, money, of course. They took lessons from televangelists. Pay me to get to Eden.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

How's the search coming for evidence that Lindzen's research was paid for or influenced by "Big Oil"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

How's the search coming for evidence that Lindzen's research was paid for or influenced by "Big Oil"?

" He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s ". Someone in this thread posted that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

How's the search coming for evidence that Lindzen's research was paid for or influenced by "Big Oil"?

" He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s ". Someone in this thread posted that.

That doesn't quite follow. Expert witnesses testify about thins for which they've already had some expertise. They provide commentary.

It's kinda like the hatchet job being done on Kristen Gillibrand in New York where people got mad that as a young lawyer she defended tobacco companies. So her boss had tobacco as a client, she was the best and brightest, and was put on the case. And that's held against her 15 years later.

By the way, what did Lindzen actually say? I've had experts who were paid for their expert opinion that my client should pay up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

How's the search coming for evidence that Lindzen's research was paid for or influenced by "Big Oil"?

" He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s ". Someone in this thread posted that.

In case you hadn't noticed, the definitions of "research" and "expert witness testimony" are NOT the same.

"Words have meanings" - kallend

Now, you were saying?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

How's the search coming for evidence that Lindzen's research was paid for or influenced by "Big Oil"?

" He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s ". Someone in this thread posted that.

In case you hadn't noticed, the definitions of "research" and "expert witness testimony" are NOT the same.

"Words have meanings" - kallend

Now, you were saying?

You can't unscramble eggs. His OPINION is tainted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How is the search coming along for evidence that the folks at NOAA and NSIDC are in the pay of "Big AGW"?

How's the search coming for evidence that Lindzen's research was paid for or influenced by "Big Oil"?

" He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s ". Someone in this thread posted that.

In case you hadn't noticed, the definitions of "research" and "expert witness testimony" are NOT the same.

"Words have meanings" - kallend

Now, you were saying?

You can't unscramble eggs. His OPINION is tainted.

In YOUR opinion. Oddly enough, you don't seem to have the same opinion of researchers that get money from organizations that support the AGW theory - imagine that....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706