Home ›

“When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?

Submitted by lak0006 on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 09:48
in

The quote above is from economist John Maynard Keynes.  The science reported below with the headline “Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist” was done by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.  The questions I ask myself and suggest you might want to ask yourself too are:  

1.     Why aren’t we celebrating his findings, which are based on hard data not just computer simulations?  (See earlier post about the “weak underbelly of climate models” which is also about some research conducted at MIT.)

2.     Why aren’t Lindzen’s findings the lead story reported on every media outlet in the USA and the rest of the world too?  (And before you fall prey to the ad homonym attack diversion, most of which has no factual basis, consider that just about every piece of published medical and scientific research conducted today is funded by somebody who has a bias just like every other person on the planet.  That doesn't refute the work, it just helps us put it in context and take the possibility of bias into consideration.)

3.     Why are the politicians of the USA, including our president and the leadership of most of the world’s other countries for that matter:    

        a. Still talking about taxing carbon dioxide and anthropogenic global warming?

        b. Planning to meet in Copenhagen in December to sign a gigantic bureaucracy creating, carbon dioxide controlling, international treaty?

        c. NOT dealing with all the many real pollution problems we have, most of which are anthropogenic?

Did terrorists put something in our water, or have we been dumbed down by some pollutant, or have I gone mad, or has earth morphed into Bizarro World?  Here's the article and some reference links too.  Question everything!  Think and decide for yourself.

--- ---- --- ---

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

August 18, 2009 7:39 AM Portland Civil Rights Examiner Dianna Cotter

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years.  Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.  More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale." -- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

--- --- --- ---

Want more information? – Try these for starters:

The theory that carbon dioxide might be causing global warming was worthy of our consideration.  The computer models helped us consider the possibilites and experiment with "what if" simulations.  The hard-data science is in.  The theory is disconfirmed.  When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do?