A little unfair I think @Vay , Richard Lindzen was skeptical of climate modeling in particular the field which he was eminently qualified to speak on was in relation to clouds. Richard Lindzen for those who don’t know is a Professor I believe off the top of my head at MIT and wrote over 100 peer reviewed papers in particular in relation to clouds.
Even the article you link to notes.
Clouds, for instance, are notoriously difficult to represent in global climate models
We could argue back and forth the accuracy of the 70’s models, we can agree that are continuously changing. You know I think anthropogenic is happening, yet to poo poo the idea that Professor raises, which is Climate modeling is so difficult as to question the reliability of the projected outcome, Remains a valid point, even today.
This is just one of a nearly daily debunking of Lindzen’s climate work, which is nothing more than industry friendly climate denial. Prior to climate denial, his claim to fame was his claim cigarettes didn’t cause cancer.
Climate modeling is reliable and correct, no matter how many times Exxon said otherwise.
You are thinking of Fred Singer. Look I understand you just want to oppose any thought against everything is known and understood, the fact is many things are not understood.
Have you noticed the shift by former deniers in recent times? It’s now something along the lines of, “climate change is real, but not caused by (or only minimally caused by) humans.” I find this recent development very interesting.
They keep cycling through the same several arguments. They present bunk science, you have to refute it to them, they present another already debunked theory again, rinse, cycle, repeat.
He’s teamed up with lobbyists I’ll give you that, downplayed the effect of anthropocentric global warming, I agree.
To call him a fraud is to enter into small mindedness and ignorance. At least admit this is a serious guy in the field of climate science, you characterizing him off as some kook, is kind of why some people see the attrition against him as ideologically driven rather than fact based.
This makes him a fraud, by definition. He is a serious guy only in the fact that his work is well known and circulated. He has never been serious about science, he’s an enemy of science because he lies, distorts, and fabricates the truth for money.
He’s certainly delayed action on AGW with his ‘work’. He’s a fraud, and we don’t owe them time or explanations. Certainly not this far down the road.
Stop and listen to yourself, global warming is political and he aligned himself.
He has never been serious about science.
You seriously doubt a guy who is a professor at MIT specializing in global warming and has written over 100 peer reviewed papers is not serious about the science?
Fraud scientists like Lindzen made AGW political. AGW is no more political than biology, chemistry, or any other scientific law. The people that deny this science in order to safeguard industry profits politicize the issue. You’re reversing cause and effect there.
Yes I doubt him because his work has been routinely debunked, dismissed, and shown to be fraudulent by his more reputable climate scientist peers like clockwork for decades. They know more than me.
I meant to reply to the thread but think I sent it as a private message: I somehow kinda agree with both of you guys. As a major go-to guy for climate change deniers, Lindzen has contributed greatly to their cause. However I can’t go so far as to call him a fraud - not in the way say Trump is. I think because he is an ideolog, his personal bias has led him astray to a more-than-normal extent for an expert speaking on his own area of expertise.
Lindzen is probably the one most responsible for the denialisttalking point about models not taking clouds into account. The Lindzen-Choi paper is the most often cited, but it’s been trashed by other scientists for poor methodology and overstating its conclusions.[5][6] Naturally, Lindzen’s skepticism has attracted funding from fossil fuel interests and he’s worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC.[7] He is trotted out by deniers as “proof” that “real scientists disagree” about global warming and that there is no scientific consensus, even though he does accept the theory (just not most of the predictions made by the IPCC). His op-eds in popular media have increasingly fallen back on refuted denier talking points as well. This makes him a massive enabler.
He has also appeared at the Heartland Institute’s conferences as the keynote speaker. This makes him a really massive enabler.[8]
Senator Snowball has occasionally referred to Dick as a personal “hero”[9] for crusading against the liberal alarmists and their warmist agenda.
In the 90’s, Dick reportedly charged “$2,500 a day for his ‘consulting services’”.[10]
Speaking of 90s, Dick often scoffs at Cook’s famous 97% consensus statistic. Didn’t anyone tell him to speak for himself?[11]
Lindzen’s talent seems to be making repeatedly failed predictions as well as failing to get much of his material published in peer-reviewed journals in his more “skeptical” days.
Some other stuff he’s been wrong about:
Claiming that the link between smoking and lung cancer is “weak.”[12]
Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an “old view.”)[14]
Solar and volcanic forcings were severely downplayed to fudge data.[15]
Misrepresenting the link between warming and hurricanes.[16]
Dick is also a card-carrying member of the CO2 is Green crowd, saying: “controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.” Can never have too much of a good thing, right? Right?
Even if you believe it’s a hoax, the opportunity cost of not investing now while other nations move very quickly forward is huge. The writing is on the wall, and you don’t have to believe in climate change to see this.
Interesting the central claim is that the climate sensitivity is in fact much higher than suspected. Instead of 3.5 degrees it’s more like 5, the IPCC had previously suggested the range could be anywhere from 1.5 to about 6, off the top of my head.
Indeed I do get an adjustment towards a higher range is worse. But as the article notes this is the central piece of data in calculating warming and modelling.
Some of us have been long saying because this component has such wide variance the modelling is dubious, while you on the other hand have been saying the modeling is accurate.
It would seem if you accept the large adjustment, which I agree it makes things worse, you would also have to concede the modeling was quite far off.
‘All models are wrong, some models are useful’ is I think the somewhat famous quote by some person of note. I have no emotional investment in how right the models have been. Frankly these new results could turn out to be wrong as well (a point that stood out to me was that it doesn’t seem to flush with historical evidence). What I care about most is future risk and how we address it.