Richard Lindzen from MIT is a serious academic scientist who has some
reservations about the IPCC reports
and is often labeled as a denier. I put my faith in his research. From

Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer
models<> used
to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may
be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water
vapor feedback <>. The
feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much
warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide<>.
Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future
claim has been sharply
to the IPCC's 
Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in
their models, e.g., treatment of clouds <>,
modelers still thought their climate predictions were
has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels
but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the
expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the
expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C
(5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate
sensitivity to be 0.5°C based on ERBE
estimates have been criticized by other
addressed these criticisms in a 2011 paper, still showing the models
exaggerating climate

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM, meekerdb <> wrote:

> On 11/10/2013 2:19 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb <> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2013 12:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> As I said before, I am agnostic on this issue for the following reasons:
>>> - I am not educated in climate science and I am sufficiently educated
>>> in science to understand that it would take years of full-time effort
>>> to get to a point where I could judge the merit of climate science
>>> research findings by myself -- even there I would probably have to
>>> become an insider, because I understand that a lot of key data is
>>> never made publicly available;
>>> - I am sufficiently knowledgable of complex systems to be skeptical of
>>> the predictive power of any complex systems model at our current level
>>> of sophistication;
>>> - The issue became so heavily politicised that it is basically not
>>> reasonable to trust news reporting on either side of it.
>>> I am aware of the 5th IPCC report and I am also aware of claims by
>>> reputable climate scientists that the models' predictions appear to be
>>> deviating increasingly from the observables:
>>> climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/
>>> Are you aware that Judith Curry was on the Berkley Earth team to resolve
>>> the
>>> question of whether the earth is actually warming.  She and Richard
>>> Muller
>>> had been critical of the analyses performed by NOAA, Hadley, CRU, and
>>> GISS.
>>> When the new analysis, which met all the past criticisms, confirmed all
>>> the
>>> previous conclusions, she quit the team and shifted her criticism from
>>> "it's
>>> not happening" to "it's not predictable".  Notice that means it could be
>>> a
>>> lot worse than predicted too - but the Deniers and FUDers never mention
>>> that.
>> I've been around long enough to know that she could possibly describe
>> the same sequence of events in a way that makes her look good and her
>> opponents bad. I am more interested in the graphs.
> Then look at these:
> 2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/
>>  I am not invested in disproving global warming. I like to think I am
>>> scientifically-minded, so I accept reality whatever it is. I hope it
>>> is wrong. I suspect some people want it to be true.
>>> Yes, you're the perfect example of the success of the Deniers FUD
>>> campaign.
>> Maybe, but I would be more confident that I was witnessing a serious
>> scientific debate if people were not using terms like "Deniers" and
>> "FUD campaign".
> But that's exactly the point.  You are NOT witnessing a serious scientific
> debate.  There's ZERO serious science on the side of Deniers.  They are
> like anti-evolutionist.  All they do is look for some small anomaly (like a
> prediction that was off) and say, "What about THAT?".  You are witnessing a
> disinformation campaign - and the cui bono is pretty obvious.
>>  98% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and it will
>>> have
>>> bad consequences.
>> This is a badly disguised argument from authority. It's precisely
>> phrases like "98% of all climate scientists..." that triggered my BS
>> alarms in this issue.
> Since you said you didn't feel up to understanding the science what are
> you going to rely on?  Talking heads on Faux News or the IPCC?
>>    But you're aware of skeptical scientists, like Judith
>>> Curry (who are given TV time on Faux News), so it's a toss-up.  It's been
>>> heavily politicized - by money from the fossil fuel companies - so no
>>> news
>>> can be trusted.  You're not expert enough to read the scientific
>>> literature
>>> - so you're agnostic.
>> This may be the case.
>>  You *suspect* some people want it to be true???
>> Well I'm almost sure.
>>  In other words you suspect
>>> some academics of wanting to trash the world economy for vague,
>>> unexpressed
>>> personal reasons.
>> I wasn't referring to the academics, nor suggesting wrong-doings. Some
>> people strongly dislike capitalism and take pleasure in the
>> possibility that it could be destructive for the environment. There's
>> a sort of moral reward for them in that. Notice that I'm not saying
>> that they are wrong. They could be right. I am saying that they may be
>> biased.
> Since they are not the ones publishing studies and analyses what does
> their opinion have to do with anything?  Your implication was that the
> warnings about AGW were falsely motivated.  What difference does it make if
> Joe Sixpack is biased (and you can bet he's not biased in favor of high
> fuel prices)?
>>  But you don't suspect the Koch brothers, Exxon, BP, Faux
>>> News, the Discovery Institute, the MacArthur Foundation, and a host of
>>> right-wing think tanks of wanting it to be false AND paying a lot of PR
>>> firms to obfuscate the issue.
>> Of course I suspect that too. In fact I'm essentially sure that they
>> are doing all that. But this doesn't mean that the global warming
>> models are correct.
> Yet you're willing to suspect the IPCC report by scientists is phony
> because some anti-capitalists believe it???  Seems to me that you're biased
> because you think that if AGW is serious it will require government action
> and cannot be "fixed" by free market capitalism. So it's easier to believe
> AGW is a hoax (as some Congressmen from oil states have charged).
> Brent
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to