How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"


#721

his reply letter:

“Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute with the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate (PAOC) playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis of this issue,” Lindzen wrote. “For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the ‘risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide’ really are,” he said, referencing something James Madison wrote in 1787.


#722

I think you need to understand what his point is, he doesn’t deny Co2 levels are increasing nor does he claim a rise in Co2 won’t increase temperature.

So the question to you, which might help your focus is this.

If you double the level of Co2 in the atmosphere, how many degrees will the average global temperature rise and can you provide a level of certainty to your answer please?


#723

I’m guessing watching a Nobel Laureate in Physics is too much to handle, too.

From 1880 to 2013 the temperature has increased from ~288 Kelvin to ~288.8 Kelvin, or 0.3%. He has a graph for the hairing impaired.
During that time the world population went fron ~1.5 billion to 7 billion.


#724

Where are you digging these guys up from, the grave ? :grin:


#725

I can’t, but I’m pretty sure I can trust the majority of climate scientists models within their margins of error.

Interesting how you lot apply your politics first and then select a few voices from the edge of reality that fit your world view.


#726

ahhh…you’re starting to have doubts by asking irrelevant questions. a good sign.

Here’s another fact from Nobel Laureate.
“CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 380ppm in around 100 years, but temperature only increased ~0.8 Celsius.”

Wow, so it’s had very little impact.


#727

please stop talking in the mirror and debate real scientists and their real data


#728

No doubt in my mind.

CO2 is causing warming and we are in trouble . Whether it’s 1.5c, 2c or up to 4 C increase is the only question .


#729

Why is Lindzen right but almost all climate scientists worldwide wrong ?


#730

lol. you think 4C is extreme, the world has had 20C temperature swings and not blown up.


#731

We would all be dead what are you talking about ? Acid oceans. Boiling temps. Mass war and famine.


#732

wrong. just certain places. Don’t take extreme emotional views.


#733

I can, according to the IPCC reports, depending on which one you read the number can vary from 1 degree up to 6 degrees with most of the scientists being fairly confident (definitely not certain) that it is probably around 3.5 C degrees of warming for a doubling of Co2.

This is a key point for Lindzen, because factually what is known about a doubling of Co2
(in a black box environment) is it will result in 1 degree of warming, the rest is projected from additional feedbacks which are calculated by modeling and given the complexity of modeling the planet and number of variables involved over such a long time span doubts the ability to do so accurately.

You don’t know what my politics are on Global Warming.


#734

Just certain places.
Not worth debating now.

But I do get a laugh about how you guys form your poltiics first and then grab some cranks to back up your world view.
Similar to fundamentalist religion.


#735

research grants. Did you read Lindzen’s full article. He spells it out slowly for all us laypersons why global warming hypothesis exists.


#736

Oh so it’s research grants which caused the four historical record global temps year by year.

LOL.


#737

here’s the global temps swings. wow, that one on the right (current time) is SO HUGE


#738

Nothing to see here folks.


#739

That’s not a very scientific attitude. Science always includes a healthy dose of doubt. Otherwise it turns into politics.


#740

I’ll note this to @KHHville while Richard Lindzen do bring up issues worth discussing, there are many who are just out to spread disinformation I suspect that graph is another example.

Even the idea of a global mean temperature is misleading as is the idea we can accurately know what it was throughout history. Frankly I’ve seen too many of these arguing about charts debates to know not to get drawn into them, but I assure you there will be plenty of other charts that dispute and show a very different record of historic temperatures.