Climate Change? 99% BS Bad science!!!

Berkeley CA

Description

Richard Lindzen Credentials Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964). [1] S.M., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961). [1] A.B. (mcl), Physics, Harvard University (1960). [1] Background Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. [3], [76], [77] Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT. [3] Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science. The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported. [2], [101] In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [58], [59], [62] Stance on Climate Change April 25, 2017 Writing at Merion West, Lindzen argued that believing climate change is largely caused by increases in carbon dioxide is “pretty close to believing in magic.” [92] “In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science’,” Lindzen wrote. [92] December 8, 2016 “The only meaningful question would be whether we are seeing anything sufficiently unusual to to warrant concern. And the answer to this is unambiguously ‘no’,” Lindzen declared at the At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit, organized by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). [66] 2016 Lindzen described the 97% consensus among climate scientists as “propaganda”: “It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2.” [7] 2006 “So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points. First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade. Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky,” Lindzen wrote in an article at the Wall Street Journal. [8]