On April 6 2010 I announced The Unscientists 2010 Awards.
The rules are simple, and mainly require that:
by the use exclusively or mainly, of:
a) repetition of an already debunked argument, and or,
b) logical fallacies, and or,
c) self-aggrandising puerile prosey posturing
the candidate has demonstrated a belief, hereinafter known as 'an unscientific conclusion',
that he or (rarely) she is right and scientists are wrong;
The first nominee was Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal.
And now: nominee #2 - Richard Lindzen.
Most recently published drivel:
March 21 2010, Richard Lindzen published an op-ed piece in the The_Free_Lance Star, circulation about 47427 daily, headlined "THE FACT IS, EARTH IS NEVER IN EQUILIBRIUM".
The article uses a blend of straw dogs, Cherry Picking At The Tree Of Knowledge and references to past climate changes to 'prove' that climate change is perfectly normal.
In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of a degree in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the global mean temperature anomaly (GATA), as portents of disaster.This is like comparing diamond with icecream on the viscosity scale. He compares what anyone can experience personally - local diurnal temperature change - with long term global incremental climate shift.
The Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen.Yes. That was the Jurassic period. There were no people around then to complain about the alligators. Or the dinosaurs. No rational person would consider alligators and dinosaurs to be a normal feature of a Spitzbergen contemporary with humans past or present.
Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.Huh? Run that by me again?
"Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period,
it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record."
There is an implication that acceptance (by 'warmists') of the fact of a warmest decade given the acceptance of the fact of being in a warm period is unsurprising.
"This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade."
What absence of increasing temperatures? Citations please?
As soon as I see a scientist using agendist words like "global warming enthusiasts" I know that he has stopped being objective.
Richard Lindzen's article rang a few bells, so I checked, and yes! He already published much the same article July 26 2009: quadrant.org.au/blogs/
there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.
The_Free_Lance Star
there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.There you go again: 'alarmists', 'propagandists'. These are terms used by agendists. I prefer to get my data from real scientists, real peer-reviewed papers and real-world direct observations.
quadrant.org.au/blogs/
As for my 'psychic welfare', I assume that psychological welfare is meant. By implication, if I don't accept his arguments I must be going nuts. Excellent scientific point. Not.
Now, this guy is an MIT professor. Why didn't he seek publication in a peer reviewed journal?
Maybe he knew what his peers might have to say.
Pleas in unmitigation:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Comments