http://heartland.org/policy-documents/wikipedia-bans-real-climate-propagandist
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 11/10/2013 4:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > 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 > wiki-Lindzen: > > Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer > models<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model> 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide>. > Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future > warming.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-stevenswnyt-2> > > > Except all the theory and data says that water vapor is a positive > feedback - which is why his theory is sharply criticized. It's just > speculative, "They might be wrong" stuff. > > "Dessler’s paper (Science, Vol. 330., > http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf) focused on > quantifying the cloud feedback. Using the ENSO to study changing cloud > patterns during climatic variability, he found that the feedback is likely > positive, consistent with the feedback that climate models yield." > > Lindzen is not a climate scientist, although he's a professor of > meteorology. He's notorious for making misleading insinuations about > global warming, e.g. > > "This is sufficient to conclude that Lindzen did indeed make the > mistake of confusing his temperature indices, though a more accurate > replication would need some playing around since the exact data that > Lindzen used is obscure. > > Thus, instead of correctly attributing the difference to the different > methods and source data, he has jumped to the conclusion that GISS is > manipulating the data inappropriately. At the very minimum, this is > extremely careless, and given the gravity of the insinuation, seriously > irresponsible. There are indeed issues with producing climate data records > going back in time, but nothing here is remotely relevant to the actual > issues. > > Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has > some lessons for how seriously one should take Lindzen’s comments. I > anticipate with interest Lindzen’s corrections of this in future > presentations and his apology for misleading his audience last month. > > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/ > " > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
