Video of Lindzen’s Recent Presentation -Deconstructing Global Warming

Part 1

Some points from Part 1:

As far back as the 1970’s, Bert Bolin, advisor to the Swedish Prime Minister and later the first head of the IPCC openly announced that “Climate Change” would be used as a vehicle to implement a variety of agendas.

Two cooperating institutions emerged n the 1990’s:
– the Tyndal Centre for Climate Studies at UEA, headed by Michael Hulme
– Potsdam Institute for Climate impact Research, headed by Joachim Schellnhuber

Both these institutions epitomize the explotation of the clmate issue. Both have nterlocking directorates (they are effectively one institution).

Mike Hulme’s recent book “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” contains some revealing quotes. He readily acknowledges that the science is uncertain, but that this doesn’t matter given the uses that this issue may be put:

The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us.”

“Because the idea of climate change is so plastic. It can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs.”

“We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects.”

“These myths transcend the scientific categories of “true” and “false.”

“Create a concept and reality leaves the room” – quote which might apply to CAGW.

The vulnerability of science was well understood by President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation in 1961, he said “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite” and that “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract virtually becomes a substitute for intellectual curiosity …. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded.

Part 2

The Foreign Secretary accused the public of lacking a sense of urgency in the face of potentially devastating consequences of climate change. David Miliband said that the people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to be galvanised into action before the Copenhagen Climate Change summit in December.
Hannah Devlin, The Times, 23 October 2009

Bertold Brecht response to the popular uprisings in East Germany in 1953:

After the uprising of 17th June, The secretary of the writer’s union, Had leaflets distributed in Stalinellee, stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government, and could win it back only by redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people, and elect another?

Any two temperatures (eg from 1985-2008 years temp record) where the error bars (uncertainty or fuzz) overlap – means that the two or not statistically significantly different from each other. (It doesnt matter whether the trend is up, down or flat). Therefore, according to this criteria, temperatures in 1987 were not staistically different to temperatures in 2008! However the BBC talks of “reaching the dizzy temperature heights of 1998”

Part 3

Whenever people in positions of authority who support global warming alarmism are challenged, their response is usually along the lines of “this is all justified by the latest IPCC report, which is the best available concensus of the world’s climate scientists.”, or “how can so many institutions all support this if it is not true?”

This is effectively an appeal to “Authority” rather than to scientific argument. Any discussion of the science is usually avoided. This is abuse of scientific integrity.

Part 4

Part 5

– the normal scientific method to validate calculations is with empirical data.
-we have had the data for some time, to actually measure the greenhouse effect, to see if it is functioning as predicted, and to evaluate climate sensitivity. This data is as follows:

1) The 16 year (1985 to 1999) record of outgoing radiation from two satellites
a) ERBE satellite -the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE Barkstrom, 1984).
b) CERES satellite

These give the longwave radiation emitted by the earth, the heat radiation and reflected shortwave radiation.

2) Sea surface tmperatures for the same period from the National Centre for Environmental Prediction

3) On top of this, we have the IPCC calculated radiation budget for models, forced by observed seasurface temperature from the atmospheric model intercomparison program at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory of the DOE. That is, the IPCC intercompares models in that they have a dataset of the models that were run with exactly the same temperature observed, & as forced by the sea surface temperatures, these models predict the radiation that should be observed at the top of the atmosphere.

Most feedbacks from models and in nature, are occurring in the tropics.

It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1C of warming due to the fact that it acts as a blanket.

Model projections of greater warming absolutely rely on positive feedbacks from the main greenhouse substances in the atmosphere – water vapour and clouds, act to amplify anything that man does with CO2. Model projections require that these positive feedbacks add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing any net cooling of the climate system. This is not widely recognised.

However there is a way to evaluate the feedback factor – by seeing how fluctuations in radiation change with temperature. This is done by taking fluxes observed by satellite, and predicted by models and correlating how they change with fluctuations in observed sea surface temperatures.

Taking the greenhouse effect as a ‘blanket’
If increasing the temperature reduces the outgoing radiation (which is the cooling of the system) , then the blanket effect is amplified (positive feedback).

If increasing the temperature increases the outgoing radiation , then the blanket effect is diminished (negative feedback).

All of the climate model results show a trend of decreasing outgoing radiation with increasing temperature, indicating an amplified blanket effect (positive feedback). The fact that all models agree is used to imply that the result is ‘robust’. All this shows is that there is good ‘precision’ between the models, but tells us nothing about the accuracy of the results!

The real world empirical data shows the opposite! As temperature increases, the outgoing radiation increases (& at twice the magnitude that it goes down according to the model predictions).

All this can be easily related to climate sensitivity. The real data is telling us that climate sensitivity is only about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2, significantly less than model predicitions (e.g. ‘catastrophe’ models predict 5C increase for a doubling of CO2, but the real world data suggests only 1/10th of that).

In a normal world we would be able to conclude that the very foundation of the global warming issue is wrong.

Part 6

“The field (climate science) is corrupt, without any question. I would say most scientists don’t believe this and didn’t believe this 20 years ago. But for young scientists they know they ould be in trouble if they spoke out, so they don’t. “

” A community of scientists has been created that are not interested in the science. The Potsdam Institute is called the institute of climate “Impacts” – what this means is that if you are stuying cockroaches and you want funding, you call it “Global Warming and Cockroaches”, but never in a million years do you learn about climate. ”

” The people who are dealing with the policy have to genuinely familiarise themselves with the science”.

“When asked , ‘am I a climate skeptic?’, I always answer ‘No, to the extent possible I am a climate denier’. Ths is because by being a skeptic, you are assuming they have a case but you have doubts about it. There isnt a good case, and by allowing them to call us skeptics would force us to agree that they have something.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: