Age: 76
Claim To Fame: Atmospheric physicist and top MIT Climate Scientist
Why He's The Conservative of the Week: for continuing to speak out against the false narratives surrounding 'climate change' by environmentalists, the media and liberal politicians. For years Lindzen, a professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to the defense of fellow scientists who don't support man-made global warming and were part of a recent Democratic witch hunt.
Most recently, on RealClear Radio, Lindzen, rallied against the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argued Lindzen.
With the media spin continuing (TIME magazine has already declared that '2016 Expected to Be the Warmest Year on Record, Lindzen, a climate scientist who isn't receiving government grants to validate the pre-determined global warming outcomes, made the observation to the Climate Depot:
“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?”
“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
...“When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said in November 2015.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.
– “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
Climatologist Dr. John Christy said it best: “If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees? The government is not the final word on the truth.”
Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians continue to use the '97% consensus' figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited Australian researcher John Cook's paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations.
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” Obama said in 2013, announcing his new global warming plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”
Lindzen disagreed with Obama and other liberal politicians who cite Cook’s paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it’s part of a political machine that’s used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.
“If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?” Lindzen said.
No comments:
Post a Comment