yep, scientists are weary of flat earthers

[Mytzlplk]

not the small fry, uneducated flat earther idiots that peddle their wares in obscurity, but rather those bought and paid for by the energy industry.

Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? (and of course there's not a flat earther idiot alive that couldn't get the same grant money that allegedly explains the corruption of those involved in the "gorebal warming hoax" from which they could manufacture some wares to peddle as well) Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/​

 

[Figjam]

...title should read, "
yep, scientists <<and anyone with a functioning brain,>> are weary of flat earthers...

 

[Dino]

...title should read, "
yep, scientists <<and anyone with a functioning brain,>> are weary of flat earthers...

Ya think this guy has a "functioning brain"? Because I do.

A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Richard Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and .  .  . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.

By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2

 

[Mytzlplk]

...title should read, "
yep, scientists <<and anyone with a functioning brain,>> are weary of flat earthers...

indeed fig...lol

 

[Mytzlplk]

Ya think this guy has a "functioning brain"? Because I do.

A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Richard Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and .  .  . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.

By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2

my my, and idiot promoting the efforts of a global warming supporter who has regardless, been the "wrongest the longest" in his quest to minimize its impacts.

will wonders never cease

that rebuts the content of the TP how exactly loudmouth?

 

[JV-12]

my my, and idiot promoting the efforts of a global warming supporter who has regardless, been the "wrongest the longest" in his quest to minimize its impacts.

will wonders never cease

that rebuts the content of the TP how exactly loudmouth?

It's hard to take you seriously. Especially when you have your ears bent to whatever your leftist heroes in D.C. tell you is the greatest problem facing humanity, then it becomes your greatest problem facing humanity. I'm curious -- are you also one of those who thinks we evolved from rock soup without the aid of an intelligent designer? I know some of your "super intelligent" scientists think that.

There are a hundred major problems facing mankind more real and more impacting than stupid global warming.

Secondly, even IF global warming is occurring, I am the last man on earth to believe lefties like your science friends and al gore who will swallow it is happening because of our hair spray cans or carbon footprint. It's political, it's all money driven. And if it is going to happen there is nothing we can or should be doing about it. I can save a lot more lives with that money than you fools wasting it for your own glory and benefit.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

let's make that easier to read.

 

[Mytzlplk]

let's make that easier to read.

thanks julie ... lol

I'm afraid it will be a wasted effort though, given that the more stupid amongst the flat earther crowd thinks there are more important things to deal with than a warming planet and all that will bring, and that they don't believe in anyway.

They often reserve belief for only those things they can't see and touch, unlike a thermometer.

 

[Dino]

my my, and idiot promoting the efforts of a global warming supporter who has regardless, been the "wrongest the longest" in his quest to minimize its impacts.

will wonders never cease

that rebuts the content of the TP how exactly loudmouth?

You dismiss skeptics as stupid, even those whose IQ is triple yours.

And THAT is not too bright.

 

[middleview]

Ya think this guy has a "functioning brain"? Because I do.

A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Richard Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and .  .  . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.

By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm

 

[Dino]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm

Make you a deal. You agree to not agree with him 100% if I do too.

Deal?

You agree with him on this?


“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe

 

[Mytzlplk]

You dismiss skeptics as stupid, even those whose IQ is triple yours.

And THAT is not too bright.

well, that applies largely just to stupid flat earther idiots like you that lack sufficient knowledge of the topic to even intelligently "debate" it.

Those like Lindzen more often than not get paid well for being shown to be wrong, whereas those like you feed off the shameless stupidity you exhibit with every effort like this one.

 

[PhilFish]

maybe we send these flat earthers..to a movie....with popcorn..

yeah..

?

 

[Dino]

well, that applies largely just to stupid flat earther idiots like you that lack sufficient knowledge of the topic to even intelligently "debate" it.

Those like Lindzen more often than not get paid well for being shown to be wrong, whereas those like you feed off the shameless stupidity you exhibit with every effort like this one.

Well at least you admit how truly unprincipled and closed-minded you are on this topic.
Talk about incapable of debate! You're a hopeless crack-addled case.

I'm glad I have retained my sanity enough to disagree with you on nearly every subject. Shows I'm living right.

 

[middleview]

Make you a deal. You agree to not agree with him 100% if I do too.

Deal?

You agree with him on this?


“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe

1. I do not think that the thousands of climate scientists are all part of a conspiracy to convince us of a future problem with the climate so they can gain government grants. Especially when you look at how many scientests disagree....it is a very small number. The ones who are the most vocal appear to be in the employ of companies that are in favor of doing nothing....ie..exxon.

2. I think we have a few alternatives to the status quo....one is to gradually work on reducing the air pollution suspected of contributing to the problem. If the scientists are wrong the worst that will have happened is that we will have cleaner air and will have spent some money doing so.
Another is to expend huge amounts of money in an attempt to change things in the next five years (pick a number)....Nobody is suggesting that.

3. His statement “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” shows that even scientists can be members of the black helicopter crowd. "It's the one world government people. RUN! RUN!".

 

[Mytzlplk]

Well at least you admit how truly unprincipled and closed-minded you are on this topic.
Talk about incapable of debate! You're a hopeless crack-addled case.

I'm glad I have retained my sanity enough to disagree with you on nearly every subject. Shows I'm living right.

further concessions as to your idiocy were not solicited, but are certainly welcome.

meanwhile, the content/substance of this TP remains largely unaddressed and certainly unrebutted, and will never be by the efforts of a lone and demonstrated clown like Lindzen, or any collection of them you could possibly find.

The only thing you've demonstrated is your widely known and customary impotence, because you think that citing one demonstrated and almost always wrong "climate scientist" somehow rebuts the stupid claims that the other climate scientists are all part of a "hoax", which was the central and all but exclusive case made here. Wow, one discredited wolf crying in the wilderness trumps that of the thousands not discredited.

ANd indeed, you've been on the wrong side of just about every issue of significance I've been on the right side of, including this one, the efficacy of the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, etc, etc, etc, for better than ten years now. What being an almost always wrong dumbass has to do with "living right" is something that can only be explained by the product of your rather warped and wrong mind.

It must really suck for you to know (and everyone else familiar with your history) that a "crack-addled" guy has outsmarted you for so long.

You're a hopeless and demonstrably ignorant dumbass, and make that case for me with just about every effort you try, like here.

do have a lousy day -- I'll amuse myself with your last dishonest word later.

 

[Hmmmm]

Ya think this guy has a "functioning brain"? Because I do.

A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Richard Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and .  .  . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.

By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2

No matter how smart he is, he is just one scientist. Using him and his opinion is in no way a solid counter to global climate change that is embraced by thousands of scientists worldwide. I say that it is good for Lindzen to be making his dissent known as it drives science forward. It forces other scientists to defend their positions. It makes the consensus stronger or changes it. In the case of Lindzen, it seems to be making the consensus stronger as he isn't able to make a solid scientific case for his opinions. Go Lindzen!

 

[Charcat]

There will be a funeral someday for "Climate Change."
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/funerals-edge-question.html