Articles Tagged &quot;Richard Lindzen&quot;

Print Article

RICHARD LINDZEN Q & A

MUST SEE YOUTUBE: Richard Lindzen Q & A at the House of Commons

Monday, March 12th 2012, 11:49 AM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

The following YouTube is the third and last part of the MUST SEE YOUTUBE: Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar (Global Warming: How to approach the science) held at the House of Commons

Richard Linzen takes in some interesting Questions & gives even more interesting Answers at the recent House of Commons Seminar.

Richard Lindzen Q & A at the House of Commons 22nd of February

RICHARD LINDZEN MEETINGS REPEAL THE ACT HEADLINE STORY

Print Article

MUST SEE YOUTUBE: Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar (Global Warming: How to approach the science) held at the House of Commons

Monday, February 27th 2012, 1:11 AM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Global Warming: How to approach the science by Prof Richard S. Lindzen Pt-1/2

Uploaded by globalclimatedebate on Mar 11, 2012

Revised part 1 of 2 Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar Held at the UK House of Commons on the 22nd February 2012

See below for Pt 2

JAMES DELINGPOLE RICHARD LINDZEN HEADLINE STORY MEETINGS

Print Article

James Delingpole: Lindzen totally pwns the alarmists

Friday, February 24th 2012, 12:21 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Professor Richard Lindzen is one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest. What he doesn't know about the science behind climate change probably isn't worth knowing. But even if you weren't aware of all this, even if you'd come to the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Dick Lindzen does not need to raise his voice. He does not use hyperbole. In a tone somewhere between weariness and withering disdain, he lets the facts speak for themselves. And the facts, as he understands them, are devastating.

Here is how he began his speech, which was organised on behalf of the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act:

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

You can read a full version of his speech here. The Bishop has it up here.

Source Link: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole

LORD MONCKTON HEARTLANDGATE HEADLINE STORY RICHARD LINDZEN MEETINGS FAKEGATE

Print Article

Lord Monckton: Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted

Thursday, February 23rd 2012, 6:27 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a packed meeting in the Palace of Westminster (don’t tell the Clerk of the Parliaments), at which Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke even more brilliantly than usual on “global warming”, and engagingly answered many questions from Parliamentarians and the public.

Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade “global warming” as nonsense). The Minister indicated – in effect, and with scarcely-concealed regret – that the party line set by David Cameron in response to various opinion polls, focus groups and other such artifices for identifying and following a consensus rather than setting a lead, and not the objective scientific and economic truth, was likely to remain the basis of UK climate policy.

In reality, orders issued to our elected nominal “government” by the hated, unelected Kommissars of the EU, our true government, who have exclusive competence to decide and dictate the UK’s environment and climate policies, are and will remain the basis of UK climate policy, regardless of what (or whether) Cameron and his vapid focus groups think (if “think” is the right word). Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.

Source Link: wattsupwiththat.com

RICHARD LINDZEN REPEAL THE ACT MEETINGS UPDATED PIERS CORBYN

Print Article

Is catastrophic global warming, like the Millenium Bug, a mistake? by Simon Carr: Updated by Piers Corbyn

Wednesday, February 22nd 2012, 5:54 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

At a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by “settled science”. They’re not new, but some of it was new to me.

Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes half this increase to human activity.

Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”

He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.

Updated below with MUST READ comments from Piers Corbyn

Source Link: blogs.independent.co.uk

RICHARD LINDZEN ANDREW MONTFORD HEADLINE STORY

Print Article

Foreward to Andrew Montford's Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change: Richard Lindzen: The Perversion Of Science

Thursday, February 9th 2012, 5:24 AM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Foreword to Andrew Montford's Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change

Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.

The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.

The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.

Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.

Source Link: .thegwpf.org

DAVID H. DOUGLASS RICHARD LINDZEN MARC MORANO HEADLINE STORY BERKELEY EARTH SURFACE TEMPERATURE (BEST) PROJECT

Print Article

MIT's Richard Lindzen & Physicist David Douglass: Muller's findings of warming are 'nothing remarkable' -- BEST study does not alter Climategate's 'serious breaches of ethics'

Monday, October 24th 2011, 4:25 PM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Richard Lindzen has given Climate Depot permission to publish this analysis.

The below commentary was written by MIT's Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and and Dr. David H. Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester

Lindzen & Douglass slam media for 'completely misrepresenting Climategate': Scandal revealed 'explicit evidence of the manipulation of proxy records used in paleoclimate reconstructions, suppression of other viewpoints, manipulation of IPCC process, and intimidation of journal editors were all evidence of serious breaches of ethics. Muller's findings hardly alters these findings'

By Richard Lindzen & David Douglass - October 23, 2011

The [October 21, 2011 Christian Science Monitor] article "Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming" is innocent enough.

Existing land based records of temperature, showing a small net warming since 1950, are probably correct (at least within the unreported uncertainty limits). As to whether estimates over the oceans (which cover 70% of the earth) are reliable is left open.

Source Link: climatedepot.com/

OPPOSING VIEWS RICHARD LINDZEN ROY SPENCER

Print Article

Opposing Views: Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen by Rob Painting & dana1981

Tuesday, September 6th 2011, 8:29 AM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Figure 1: Dessler (2011) reconstruction of Spencer & Braswell's figure 3, showing relationship between top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net flux and surface temperature, as a function of lag between them. The blue line is the observational data chosen by Spencer and Braswell. The red lines show other available observational data. The shading represents the two-sigma uncertainty of two of the data sets. The black lines show climate model results. The black lines with crosses show the climate model runs chosen by Spencer and Braswell in their paper.

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell (2011) & Lindzen & Choi (2011)) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

Spencer & Lindzen: Tipping reality on its head

The Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi papers have an unusual take on global warming: rather than warming causing a change in cloud cover (i.e. acting as a feedback to either increase or reduce warming), both papers claim that it's the other way around - changes in cloud cover cause changes in the surface temperature (in the present case, warming).

Source Link: skepticalscience.com

Print Article

RICHARD LINDZEN

MUST READ: Richard Lindzen: Climate v. Climate Alarm

Wednesday, August 31st 2011, 3:47 PM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen Presentaion: 'Increasing CO2 and greenhouse warming are not at all indicative of alarm, and that there is ample evidence that the system is not particularly sensitive'

Click source (J Curry) to download MUST READ Dr. Richard Lindzen recent Presentaion

Source Link: curryja.files.wordpress.com