Richard Lindzen

MIT scientist compares ‘climate alarmists’ to religious fanatics

Climate alarmists and greens in particular have all the hall marks of being adherents of a cult.

Dr Richard Lindzen certainly thinks so and is saying so rather loudly.

Climate change alarmists have been likened to a fanatical ‘cult’ by an MIT professor of meteorology.

Dr Richard Lindzen told a Massachusetts-based radio station that people who believe in global warming are becoming more hysterical in their arguments.

‘As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical,’ he said.

‘You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation.’

According to Howie Carr at Breitbart, the 74-year-old highlighted reports by Nasa that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history.

He points out that the Nasa climate scientists who made the claim was only 38 per cent sure this was true.

‘Seventy per cent of the Earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well,’ he said. ‘They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. ? ? Read more »

Over-the-top ?catastrophism.?

Richard Lindzen brings some clarity to the “over-the-top ?catastrophism? of the politicians and green taliban pushing the global warming/climate change agenda.

Though Lindzen is a warmist…it looks like he has had enough of the machinations, manipulations and out-right deceptions of politicians and green taliban.

A leading climate change figure has come out against the government?s continued and ridiculous climate change hysteria.

Speaking in regards to Massachusetts? new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change. ? Read more »

End of the year, that makes it 17 years with no warming

Congratulations, it is the end of 2013 and the 17th year with no global warming.

The Daily Caller celebrates by publishing the 7 setbacks for the warmists this year.

This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link ?extreme weather? to rising greenhouse gas emissions ? despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age.

In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.? Read more »

Guest Post – Kevin Hearle – NZ?s Kyoto commitment (a farce) and here is why.

iraqi

The New Zealand Kyoto commitment as measured by the Government fell to Zero in April of 2013 the actual commitment in Millions of Units was 29.1M Units but because the value of these Units is linked to the price in Euros of a CER on the European Exchange and that fell to ?0.01 effectively zero our units are deemed to be worth less than a CER (though why a unit of carbon is worth less in NZ than it is in Europe is beyond me) this made our 29.1 million credit worth nothing.

Let?s consider that we can actually measure our commitment with any certainty for the moment.

The price of carbon has fallen from around ? 12.00 in 2008 to effectively zero ?0.01 in April 2013. This fall is due to the manipulation of the market by the EU in allowing the market to be flooded with CER?s? and now by the complete loss of credibility of the UN IPCC and the Catastrophic Anthropogenic? Global Warming ?scenario painted by that organisation. ?The IPCC?s 5th Assessment report has been bagged by scientists and the press alike.? James Delingpole?s article in the Telegraph? headlined ?The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it’s time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy? sums it up.

Delingpole quotes? IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen as saying ?the IPCC has ?“sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence.” Nigel Lawson has called it “not science but mumbo jumbo”. The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC’s panel as “evasive and inaccurate” in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that it is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated ? or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story ? that almost all the scary scenarios we’ve been warned about these last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now ?graded by scientists to somewhere between “low confidence” to “exceptionally unlikely;” . ? Read more »

Global Warming, Yeah Right!

? The Telegraph

We?have?been lied to…now it is official. James Delingpole explains how we have been?systematically?lied to by agencies.


Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?

What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ? the US government body in charge of America’s temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.

Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling? Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it’s not like?NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark ? or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts ? that it simply hasn’t occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards.

What Watts has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. While he has suspected this for some time what he has been unable to do until his latest, landmark paper (co-authored with Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville) is to put precise figures on the degree of distortion involved.

For the full story go to?Watts Up With That?NOW!