Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[rushmc 23]

This link expresses my thoughts almost exactly. So I am hoping you will read or listen to Richard Lindzen. He describes himself in the following.

Quote

I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called—“climate change.”

Which are you?

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say

Group three is the predominant group on this site I think.

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

[DJL 235]

Why do you feel that Lindzen is correct but not the rest of the MIT staff?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 23]

DJL

Why do you feel that Lindzen is correct but not the rest of the MIT staff?

His views match my personal observations. (Other reports, common sence,following the money)

BTW, he is not the only MIT prof with views like his.

You seem to indicate you think he is wrong. Why do you feel like that ?

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

[billvon 2,991]

>You seem to indicate you think he is wrong. Why do you feel like that ?

I'll let MIT answer that:
==========================
Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations' climate change regime because global climate action is "not scientifically justified."

After MIT's climate researchers and faculty found out, they wrote their own open letter to the president, setting the record straight.

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."

"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones," they wrote. "These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."

Lindzen has spent years downplaying the significance of man-made climate change through his published research, testimony in lawsuits and appearances before Congress. He has compared "global warming believers" to a "cult," and called the most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading climate science body, "a political document." He served as a meteorology professor from 1983 to 2013. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.

. . .

"In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system," said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.

The science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientist also annotated the letter to point out its errors.

The MIT letter noted that professional societies including the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union have all released statements affirming the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and its grave risks. A recent analysis found that 140 of the world's national academies and top scientific geosciences, biological, chemical, physical, agricultural and other organizations have issued statements about human-caused warming.

"We owe it to future generations to remain engaged with the international community to seek the widest possible efforts to understand and mitigate [climate change] threats," the letter said.
=================

[rushmc 23]

You and they are group three.

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

[skinnay 0]

rushmc

His views match my personal observations. (Other reports, common sence,following the money)

Could you elaborate on "follow the money"? I'm curious what kind of scheme you believe exists that would make scientists across the world devote their lives to a big lie.

[billvon 2,991]

>You and they are group three.

Cool. I am comfortable standing with MIT against climate change denial.

[airdvr 210]

skinnay

***
His views match my personal observations. (Other reports, common sence,following the money)

Could you elaborate on "follow the money"? I'm curious what kind of scheme you believe exists that would make scientists across the world devote their lives to a big lie.

Uhhh...how about employment and government grants? The US spends billions every year on this type of research.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[evh 22]

Follow the money, OK.

Oil companies have huge reasearch budgets and every reason to deny any bad consequences of their work.
They employ lots of scientists, who have a direct ecomomic reason to deny climate change.
They have an enourmous political lobby. They pay large amounts of money to get their favorite politicians elected, especially in the US.

So if you want to follow the money, why not start by looking in the direction where the money actually is?

[airdvr 210]

evh

Follow the money, OK.

Oil companies have huge reasearch budgets and every reason to deny any bad consequences of their work.
They employ lots of scientists, who have a direct ecomomic reason to deny climate change.
They have an enourmous political lobby. They pay large amounts of money to get their favorite politicians elected, especially in the US.

So if you want to follow the money, why not start by looking in the direction where the money actually is?

No one here is stating that big oil doesn't have an agenda. Most here seem to think it impossible for big green to have one.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

airdvr

******
His views match my personal observations. (Other reports, common sence,following the money)

Could you elaborate on "follow the money"? I'm curious what kind of scheme you believe exists that would make scientists across the world devote their lives to a big lie.

Uhhh...how about employment and government grants? The US spends billions every year on this type of research.

Fair enough. How about the money Lindzen received from Peabody?

[airdvr 210]

SkyDekker

*********
His views match my personal observations. (Other reports, common sence,following the money)

Could you elaborate on "follow the money"? I'm curious what kind of scheme you believe exists that would make scientists across the world devote their lives to a big lie.

Uhhh...how about employment and government grants? The US spends billions every year on this type of research.

Fair enough. How about the money Lindzen received from Peabody?

I'm sure he receives money from them. If you are in an industry that is under attack from another industry are you going to sit back and let them mow you down?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DJL 235]

Quote

I'm sure he receives money from them. If you are in an industry that is under attack from another industry are you going to sit back and let them mow you down?

You're right, and that's why we look to examples in the past when human health was at odds with the industry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos

Those are two examples that in our perspective seem very obvious but when they occurred they were met with fierce resistance and caused businesses to change what they were doing to the tune of lost profits. Is there anyone standing as the champion for asbestos miners just because it means lost jobs? Yet Coal is responsible for hundreds of thousands of premature deaths per year globally and millions more serious and minor illnesses. That's not to say that other methods don't have their health risks, just that it's very well established that taking into account human health (not even talking about environmental issues) that coal is deadly.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,465]

So the far majority of scientist are holding an opinion to maintain government grants and it taints their opinion.

A slim majority is getting carbon industry funding and it doesn't taint their opinion.

That clearly makes perfect sense.

[DJL 235]

SkyDekker

So the far majority of scientist are holding an opinion to maintain government grants and it taints their opinion.

A slim majority is getting carbon industry funding and it doesn't taint their opinion.

That clearly makes perfect sense.

Insane actually. 1) Group A gets money for research a possible risk to the future of our species. 2) Industries affected by those results pay Group B and surprise, surprise, they're only giving money to people who say the exact opposite. If I were to guess which group is wearing fishnet stockings to make a buck I would guess.......


Oh, gee, I don't know... It's not like each time the research is performed by a new body that their consensus isn't the same, they must all be in cahoots and the conditions for getting their academic and professional accreditation ties them inherently to a global conspiracy to feed money into industries that make the world more healthy, reduce pollution, and preserve the environment.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

If you are in an industry that is under attack from another industry are you going to sit back and let them mow you down?

Definitely not. You are going to purchase the opinions of scientists and fund propaganda to give your industry an advantage. Tobacco companies did it for smoking, and now oil companies are doing it for climate change.

Fortunately people realized what tobacco companies were doing, and today everyone understands the risks of smoking. We are getting closer to that point with climate change although we're not quite there yet.

[ryoder 1,590]

And the sugar industry did it 50 years ago, but only recently did that come to light:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[DJL 235]

So basically, how about all you guys find sources that are not paid directly by industries or lobby groups who deny issues concerning global warming or are at least equally free of influence from private industry.

Because....you're the ones who brought it up.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 2,027]

Clearly you have no idea how science works.

You don't get famous and win Nobel prizes by confirming the existing consensus, you get famous by disproving it.

And the overwhelming consensus is that AGW is real. The so-called scientists who deny this have not actually disproven anything, all they do is throw dust in the air.

...

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

Definitely not. You are going to purchase the opinions of scientists and fund propaganda to give your industry an advantage. Tobacco companies did it for smoking, and now oil companies are doing it for climate change...

With the amusing part being that the Heartland Institute was a big "tobacco denier" paid by the cigarette companies and is now a big "climate change denier" paid for by the oil & coal industries.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DJL 235]

Quote

With the amusing part being that the Heartland Institute was a big "tobacco denier" paid by the cigarette companies and is now a big "climate change denier" paid for by the oil & coal industries.

Maybe they'll take over the advisory positions that Scott Pruit is getting rid of.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_epa-advisers1140pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d9a9085ad99f

But at least there are others in the world willing to hire our scientists:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/climate-scientists-wary-trump-please-come-france-says-presidental-hopeful

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[airdvr 210]

Quote

And some U.S. scientists might not find the French research climate so enticing. France's overall spending on R&D is currently at 2.23% of gross domestic product, whereas the United States is at 2.79%, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. French researchers have often taken to the streets during the past decade to protest budget reductions, and there are complaints about an abundance of bureaucracy in French research organizations. Macron has made the environment a leading issue in his campaign, but has said relatively little about science policy so far.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

And some U.S. scientists might not find the French research climate so enticing. France's overall spending on R&D is currently at 2.23% of gross domestic product, whereas the United States is at 2.79%, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Trump will have that problem fixed in no time.
======================
US science agencies face deep cuts in Trump budget

The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health are big losers — but planetary science at NASA stands to gain.

Nature
Sara Reardon, Jeff Tollefson, Alexandra Witze & Erin Ross
16 March 2017

When it comes to science, there are few winners in US President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal. The plan, released on 16 March, calls for double-digit cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It also lays the foundation for a broad shift in the United States’ research priorities, including a retreat from environmental and climate programmes.

Rumours of the White House proposal have swirled for weeks, alarming many researchers who depend on government funding — and science advocates who worry that the Trump administration’s stance will jeopardize US leadership in fields ranging from climate science to cancer biology. It is not clear, however, how much of the plan will survive negotiations in Congress over the coming months.

“Cutting [research and development] funding from our budget is the same as cutting the engines off an airplane that’s too heavy for take-off,” says Jason Rao, director of international affairs at the American Society for Microbiology in Washington DC. The greatest threats to the United States, he says, are those presented by infectious diseases, climate change and energy production — none of which can be addressed effectively without scientific research.
============================

[airdvr 210]

kallend

Clearly you have no idea how science works.

Perhaps not John but I know human nature. The environment has been a political football as long as I've been alive. Every decade or so someone comes along and says the sky is falling.

I'm glad there is talk of cutting the EPA budget. It's become an overgrown pig...

Quote

Office of the Administrator (OA)[16][17] which as of March 2017 consisted of 11 divisions, the
Office of Administrative and Executive Services, Office of Children's Health Protection, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Office of Homeland Security, Office of Policy, Office of Public Affairs, Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Science Advisory Board
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)[18][19]
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)[20]
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)[21]
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)[22]
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)[23]
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)[24]
Office of General Counsel (OGC)[25]
Office of Inspector General (OIG)[26]
Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA)[27]
Office of Research and Development (ORD)[28] which as of March 2017 consisted of the
National Center for Computational Toxicology, National Center for Environmental Assessment, National Center for Environmental Research, National Exposure Research Laboratory, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, National Homeland Security Research Center, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)[29]
which as of March 2017 consisted of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Emergency Management, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office.
Office of Water (OW)[30] which as of March 2017 consisted of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), Office of Science and Technology (OST), Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) and Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW).[31]

Anything that becomes this large is mostly out of control and loaded with waste. It becomes almost it's own lifeform, living and breathing, and determined to save itself from extinction.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,027]

airdvr

***
Clearly you have no idea how science works.

Perhaps not John but I know human nature. The environment has been a political football as long as I've been alive. Every decade or so someone comes along and says the sky is falling.
Completely irrelevant stuff snipped


So you admit that you really have no idea how science works.

That is, of course, quite apparent from your posts.

...

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