|2011-04-19 06:44:25||launching Lindzen Illusions|
We're set to launch Lindzen Illusions using the quotes from his recent radio interview. Call dibs if you want to do a post responding to one of these quotes transcribed by James (no particular order):
1) "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995." (combine with #12)
2) "You have to remember, this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what has been established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter."
3) "In the North Pole, you don’t have a [ice] cap, you have sea ice; it’s very variable. And as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean, you know, again your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication."
4) "The crucial thing is sensitivity: you know, what do you expect a doubling of CO2 to do? If it's only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone." (combine with #9)
5) "[Emissions cuts] would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they'd be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man [...] Your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases."
6) "The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone [cut emissions] in the whole world it wouldn't make a lot of difference." (Dana)
7) "[CO2 limits are] a heavy cost for no benefit, and it's no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I mean, what's the point of that?" (Dana)
8) "For Australia to act now is, you know, a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone."
9) "If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened. [...] But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is: is what we've seen so far suggesting that you have more than that, and the answer is no." (combine with #4)
10) "The models do say you should have seen 2-5 times more [warming] than you've already seen, you know, you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you've seen, but some mysterious process has cancelled part of it." (Dana)
11) “OK, if nothing else changed, adding the amount of CO2 that we have added thus far should account for maybe a quarter of what we have seen, we have added some other greenhouse gases, methane, fluorocarbons, freons, this sort of thing, and that should bring one to perhaps 0.5 C.” (Dana)
12) "There's not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increase in temperature [...] This is pretty tiny; it's a fraction of a degree." (combine with #1)
13) “…..I mean I think that even Flannery acknowledged that Australia do this will have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia’s output during that millennium was increasing exponentially.”
14) “….oh I think [global warming alarm] will definitely fall into, you know, the category of popular delusions. People will look at wonder at this age and wonder how science broke down, and in a period of technological advance that the public could be swayed by arguments that make no sense, and get hysterical over it.”
15) “For a lot of people it is also something I call “the quest for cheap virtue”, people need a cause…and they sorta feel puffed up by having a cause like saving the Earth, and they don’t really care that they are hurting people, that they may be involved in an immoral cause, and so on, they’re perfectly happy to just go along with it because they were told it’s virtuous.”
Quotes from a talk Lindzen gave in 1989 which I suggest combining with the new quotes to show Lindzen has been consistently wrong for over 20 years.