Posted by Tina
Today Powerline posted a letter sent to President Trump from MIT Professor Richard Lindzen
(Physicist) in an article posted here. The following is the content of the letter:
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].
The UNFCCC was established twenty-five years ago, to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
• It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
• Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
• The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
• Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
• Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.
Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
Good letter from a very smart man.
You only think he’s smart because he agrees with you. What do you think of the vast majority of scientists who disagree with his conclusions? Are they stupid? Evil? Both?
Bryan (Chris) he’s MIT’s idea of smart. When it comes to smart I’ll take their word for it. Not sure why you would reduce his intellect to the point of dependency on my opinion. That seems a bit stupid. But actually it was just an example of your arrogant need to look down your nose.
As to your questions…projecting all of that hatred on me? Really? How do your questions contribute to or expand on what Lindzen had to say to Trump?
As is quite obvious I disagree with those scientists.
I also think that the “vast majority” of scientists were never asked their opinion or considered when the political consensus conclusion was adopted as fact and the fantasy that “most scientists agree” was born.
Apparently those in your circle of smart guys disagree with the scientific method since many of their conclusions were based on computer models predicting future events and deception that relied upon a lot of emotional hype to sell.
Why not be honest. Tell us what you think about just one of Linzden bullet points. Is what he had to say wrong? If you do, do you also think you’re smarter than he?