The latest from a leading world climate expert, one of those Mozz doesn't trust and chooses to ignore and ridicule.

Alarmists keep ringing the bell

    * Richard S. Lindzen
    * From: The Australian
    * April 24, 2010 12:00AM

   
IN November last year a file appeared on the internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a startling view into the world of climate research.

In what has become known as Climategate, one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation.

Moreover, the emails showed collusion with other prominent researchers in the US and elsewhere. The CRU supplies many of the authors for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One might have thought the revelations would discredit the science underlying proposed global warming policy. Indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December's Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits.

But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the effect of the emails appears to have been small.

The general approach of the scientific community (at least in the US and Britain) has been to see whether people will bother to look at the files in detail (they mostly have not) and to wait until time diffuses the initial impressions to reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with widespread carbon control. This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty.

There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of individuals such as Penn State University's Michael Mann (who manipulated data to create the famous "hockey stick" climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the CRU).

The investigations were brief, lacked depth and were conducted mainly by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are incredible given the data.

In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise in climate, endorse essentially the following opinion: that the climate is warming; the warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide; and continued emissions will lead to catastrophe.

We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The IPCC's position in its Summary for Policymakers from its Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man's emissions.

It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally averaged temperature anomaly are also consistent with computer model predictions of warming.

There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflective aerosols or particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) that are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. Without such adjustments, the observations are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to constitute a problem not worth worrying about much.

It appears the public is becoming increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to climate change and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy.

Climategate may thus have had an effect after all.

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope the climate alarmists will lose so we can go back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water.

Richard S. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US.

yes and there are some major cheesers on this site.

Do you?
Are you as qualified as Lindzen?
Have you had published over 200 papers and books?
Were you was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change?

Do YOU have a standing paper in any peer reviewed journal that can provide a mechanism as to why current global warming is something to worry about?

Hmmm I'm guessing that's a NO too.

The only thing Lindzen seems guilty of Muso is not agreeing with YOU.  perhaps that is because he has a better picture of the world and is less biased than yourself.

ROTFLMAO...  grow up.

Have you grown up yet?

Or are you trying to tell me that every paper or idea ever thought of or postulated has been found to be exactly true except for one's by Linzden...  and that his record and standing is actually not what it is and can be discounted because you disagree with him on this subject?  
Muso the great and all knowing... 

nb;  obviously NOT grown up yet.

So dont wast everyone's time with your immature rants then eh.

Where do we find you on that site?
I mean you have to be there right.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:


The truth is within everyone.