patrick.net

The most important part:

"Scientists are specialists. Few are expert in climate. This includes many supposed ‘cli-mate scientists’ who became involved in the area in response to the huge increases infunding that have accompanied global warming hysteria"

I spent 12 years at the University in the Chemistry/Physics departments. We were also sharing the building with the geology department. Never once met someone who was even a specialist in the field.

I also liked this part which mirrors my view on the time scale of change and how it is too slow for it to matter. Sea level rise have never affected society as a whole.

"This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it.In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are in-voked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sealevel, as easured by tidegauges, are primarily dueto changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use"

Most of my friends and all of my family think I'm a crackpot because I'm a climate skeptic. I just sent them this link. I'll be surprised if they read it. Even moreso if it alters their opinion. But I can hope.

Why hasn't the usual suspects dropped by to debunk this denier in the study yet? After all, according to the "Alarmists", CO2 is going to wet-bulb us to death and turn the planet into one YYUUUGGEEEE desert!!!!!!!

....."The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter.
Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds
and other features, and such changes are common. The Earth receives about 340 watts persquare meter from the sun, but about 140 watts per square meter is simply reflected back to space, by both the Earth’s surface and, more importantly, by clouds. This leaves about
200 watts per square meter that the Earth would have to emit in order to establish balance."

Among other things, the existence of upper-level cirrus clouds, which are very strong absorbers and emitters of infrared radiation, effectively
block infrared radiation from below. Thus, when such clouds are present above about 5 km, their tops rather than the height of 5 km determine the level from which infrared reaches space. Now the addition of other greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide) elevates the emission level, and because of the convective mixing, the new level will be colder. This reduces the outgoing infrared flux, and, in order to restore balance, the atmosphere would have to warm. Doubling carbon dioxide concentration is estimated to be equivalent to a forcing of about 3.7 watts per square meter, which is little less than 2% of the net incoming 200 watts per square meter.

So, CO2 adds maybe 2% (3.7 watts) of the effect to heating, what's responsible for the other 98% kids? Oh, that thing called the SUN and CLOUDS (water vapor.)

Imagine that!!

But, but, but... those 97% of scientists.....

MrMagic says

those 97% of scientists

This guy addresses also 97% of scientists number in his talk

Temps change through out history. The important thing is the imaginary Sea Level rise.

Where's the proof?

d6rB says

MrMagic says

those 97% of scientists

This guy addresses also 97% of scientists number in his talk

That's why I mentioned it, the "Alarmists" here use that number as if it means something, besides that 97% of scientists get paid to spew the party narrative and hoax.

If the alarmists actually read that study, he completely destroys the IPCC narrative from the 90's and shows they were completely wrong with their predictions. That's why Manhattan isn't underwater yet...

MrMagic says

97% of scientists get paid to spew the party narrative and hoax

More precisely, scientists can disagree with the current politically correct narrative about global warming only if they are 1) specialists in this particular field so they know what the hell they are talking about - very few are, and 2) if they are very high up the scientific food chain, as Lindzen is. He can not be easily shouted down because of 1) and 2).

The ridiculous nature of this whole discussion is that it is a method for "the controllers" to divide and conquer.

Do you believe in Anthroprogenic Climate Change (the part they leave out: that is substantial and expected to harm the earth and it's inhabitants)?
If yes: Yay, you are accepted as being intelligent, capable of thinking, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. If no: Boo, you are a denier, incapable of thinking, a moron, closed minded, and purposefully dangerous (should be locked up/disciplined/taxed/not allowed to vote/etc.)

Why is it not OK to read and rationally discuss items like this above lecture. Why is the narrative for anything like the above: BOO DENIER, DON'T TALK TO/ABOUT....?

Can they imagine if the shoe was on the other foot with this? Doesn't anyone in the "just believe" camp have questions too?

The 97% of scientists figure is a made up statistic. We never sent out a survey to every scientist to get their opinion on the matter. I sure didn't get it.

ForcedTQ says

Do you believe in Anthroprogenic Climate Change (the part they leave out: that is substantial and expected to harm the earth and it's inhabitants)?
If yes: Yay, you are accepted as being intelligent, capable of thinking, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. If no: Boo, you are a denier, incapable of thinking, a moron, closed minded, and purposefully dangerous (should be locked up/disciplined/taxed/not allowed to vote/etc.)

Talking points on the AGW side: insolation, forcing, feedback loops, carbon balance

Talking points on the anti-AGW side: It's snowing at my house, AGW is bullshit. It's December and cold, I shoveled 4" of global warming out of my driveway. Al gore. Hippies who just want to return mankind to the stone age.

There's a REASON the claims you cited exist.

I remember a LONG online discussion the last time the Polar Vortex was this strong, one of the most vocal deniers chastized someone for "posting the same thing over and over." "The same thing" being monthly updated NOAA temperature graphs. The guy was arguing against them without comprehending them. Another guy argued for months that the ban on 100w incandescent bulbs was some socialist plot to destroy America. In the end, it came out his primary concern was that without a 100w incandescent bulb burning continuously in his outhouse, his ass would literally freeze to the seat in winter.

Wikipedia and the lying media cannot be trusted on this issue or any other. Until we get an independent media that isn't controlled be the military industrial complex and research that isn't bought by George Soros, as far as I'm concerned you can't trust the data, so I don't believe or disbelieve in climate change/global warming.

As a scientist it's clear to me climate science is political science.

Automan Empire says

Talking points on the AGW side: insolation, forcing, feedback loops, carbon balance

You do know that the temperature has been falling for a couple of years? Don't ya?