Saturday, November 28, 2020
Home Left Column MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: 'It is propaganda'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

-

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, attributes climate hype to politics, money, and propaganda. Lindzen particularly takes issue with the “97% consensus” claim that is being used to stifle debate and demonize skeptics.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT:

RealClearRadioHour: 

Question: How much warming do you expect for a doubling of carbon dioxide?

Lindzen: “Doubling is chosen for a very good reason. The dependence of the greenhouse gas effects what is called logarithmic. Which means if you double CO2 from 280 to 560ppm, you would get the same thing you as you would get from doubling from 560 to 10120. It’s a diminishing return thing.”

“There is no obvious trend for at least 18 years in temperature.”

Lindzen on ‘97% consensus’: 

Lindzen: “It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda.”

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc.

If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?

If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.

MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’

#

Related Links: 

Academia Cashing in on Climate Scare: MIT announces $300 million five-year plan ‘for action on climate change’ – Each center will seek about $8 million in annual funding, or more than $300 million in total over the five-year period — which the plan says represents “far and away the greatest opportunity for MIT to make a difference on climate change.”

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’ – Dueling Datasets: Satellite temperatures show no warming for over 18 years, while heavily adjusted ground based data shows alleged ‘hottest year’

Watch: MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen on Fox News: ‘The whole thing is fairly absurd’ – ‘We are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life – CO2’

Watch: MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen on Fox News: ‘The whole thing is fairly absurd’ – ‘We are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life – CO2’

MIT’s Dr. Lindzen in WSJ: ‘The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics’ – ‘Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm…even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating’ – Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.’

150 COMMENTS

      • Why do I need evidence when he has stated these facts himself? Mocking? I think not. I was only pointing out that he was retired now. This information posted on this website is over a decade old. Do I need evidence for that? It is easily checked from his own words.

        • As for his age. I was pointing out that that he was retired and does not even have access to current information. If this is the best that climate deniers can do, then they are doomed to repeat the past mistakes of cultures such as Easter Island. For all the denial and “head in the sand” tactics, climate deniers can’t refute the simple math tenets of global climate change. 1. CO2 increases green house effect or 2 that CO2 and methane are increasing at alarming rates. These two tenants lead to a simple equation of 1+1=2. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories that Liberals have an agenda, but I am by no means a liberal. I am a person that chooses to look at facts and math for my answers. I will likely vote for a conservative this year as I cannot fathom a corrupt Hillary in the Whitehouse and Bernie is a communist. However, conservatives need to understand conservatism and try conserving our resources and climate. There is good money and jobs to be created even if I am wrong. Many businesses see the potential and are ramping up. Get on board or miss the money train.

            • It is possible to do simple math. We input tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere each year. We raise cattle, burn coal and petroleum products. These all have carbon atoms in them. We know the volume of the atmosphere. It is a simple calculation to determine the increase that human activity has. The increasing human population of the world and the increased demand for resources has and will increase the content of carbon atoms in the atmosphere. I really do not see why this is such a conspiracy or a mystery.

              • You can estimate how much CO2 is added, but the same goes for how much is being absorbed by the oceans and increased plant growth. Estimates are just that, estimates. You still cannot run a controlled experiment to separate out natural variability. Nothing happening now is outside that range, so to justify the crashing of the global economy or asserting the oppressive yoke of government on the people is simply not justified and would, in fact, be a crime.

                • There is not any increased net plant growth. That is an erroneous understanding of the roll that plants play in the carbon cycle. CO2 levels are at their highest in the northern hemisphere during May and the lowest near November. In the southern hemisphere that is reversed, however most of the best land for plant growth is in the northern hemisphere. Plants act as a carbon sink when they are left alone to grow and keep storing carbon. Ancient plant matter that was trapped underground became fossil fuels. We are reducing both the volume of live plants as well as burning ancient plants. As the permafrost melts in the arctic, even more methane from dead plants and animals are released as gas. There is no way for plants to “grow fast enough” to act as any sort of carbon sink. Here is one example. 27,000 trees each day are cut down just to wipe our collective butts with toilet paper. I know there are a lot of jokes here, but it is just one example of how much effect over 7,400,000,000 people have on this planet

                    • Are yo sure?
                      The overall equation for the type of photosynthesis that occurs in plants:
                      6CO2 + 6H2O —>* C6H12O6 + 6O2
                      That is carbon-dioxide + water add light = sugar + oxygen
                      * = light (photons = energy)
                      This is two step. Plants dont convert CO2 to Oxygen.
                      CO2 is converted to sugars, and the water is converted to oxygen.

                    • Plants use photosynthesis during daytime hours to store sugars, but respiration during dark hours. Plants are a carbon based organism. Most growth is added during dark hours. Everything must come from somewhere. Often when looking things up on the internet, you only find what you want, and not what you need to understand.

                    • Curtis,

                      You said that plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle, they store it. That is what I question.

                      Photosynthesis happens at day, correct.
                      Plants do emit CO2 when they respire normally; taking O2 and sugar to give off CO2 at night mostly (and less so during the day). That’s because plants burn their sugars for food, CO2 is produced as a waste product (similar to how humans exhale CO2 from the food we burn for energy).

                      During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb (this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants). The half they don’t give off is converted into sugars. When you look at a tree, almost all of the body of the tree is made of sugars.

                      Four things can happen to it.
                      1. Plants break down the sugar to get the energy (to grow).
                      2. We (animals,and human animals) eat the plants, and break down the plant sugar to get energy.
                      3. Plants die and decay (are eaten by micro-orgasms).
                      4. Fire consumes plants.

                      In each case, oxygen combines with sugar to release water, carbon dioxide, and energy.
                      Soil is really pats of decomposed plants and animals. That still has some of the carbon in. That if where fossil fuels come from.
                      The point is, not all of the plants are decomposed. Some of these sugars are not converted back into CO2. The issue is that we as humans are burning it and then unlocking and releasing the CO2.

                      Now, to say that the plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle, they store it, is wrong. A process is needed to convert the sugars (that came from CO2) back into CO2. The natural process is the 4 points I mentioned. The 5th is the issue, this is where we as humans are burning the decay’d residue and releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. That is in addition to us killing too many plants. It would be ok, if the rate of us doing it was small enough for plants to catch up and balance the cycle, but it is not.

                      Often when you read people’s simplified explanation of this, they only tell you what they know, often wrong, and not what you need to understand or the facts.

                    • Dry plant biomass is as much as 50% carbon content. Something you do not seem to understand is that nothing goes away, it is only changed. The carbon atom can be free as a gas or stored in a solid state. Plants utilize carbon as a structural building block. You are trying to delve deep into the chemistry, but missing the actual carbon balance.

                    • I never said that you can create or destroy energy/matter, I never rejected e=mc2, or the conservation of energy/matter. To say I did, is dishonest of you. Sugar is not CO2, carbon is not CO2 either.

                      You have not convinced me that your ” plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle, they store it” is factually correct.

                      Until you do that, your red herrings and intellectual dishonesty is rejected.
                      In fact your “Dry plant biomass is as much as 50% carbon content” is a great step towards that. But I want it all Curtis, admit your mistake.

                    • The reason plants do not remove carbon from the cycle, is that when they are burned or dying, that carbon is released. We see this in the fluctuations of CO2 gas each spring and fall. If plants or animals are buried deep, then that can trap the carbon in a “carbon sink”. The plant biomass is then unavailable to the carbon cycle. We are digging up these carbon sinks from millions of years of rotting plants and animals thereby increasing CO2 levels.

                    • So, plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle, they store it” is factually correct.

                      If it was correct, then we would have no soils, or fossil fuels today.

                      Thank you for your attention.

                    • Now you are being a petulant child. I am trying to keep the science simple for someone like you to actually comprehend. Yes soils and other methods do act as carbon sinks, yet my point is that we are digging, burning and cutting down far more vegetation than what can be stored by natural processes. You have not addressed this issue in your attacks against me.

                    • You are yet to clearly admit that you were wrong.

                      No, I don’t have to address any issues here. You made these ridiculous claims, not me.

                    • Actually the ridiculous claim is that plants remove carbon from the atmosphere when we are digging, drilling, burning and stripping it from the earth much faster than natural carbon sink process can store it. This is a pretty simple math equation that you seem to have a problem grasping. I did not insult you, I just made a scientific observation based on the evidence presented.

                    • So, “plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle, they store it” is factually correct?

                      If it was correct, then we would have no soil, or any fossil fuels.

                      I couldn’t begin to express how very bored I am with reading your comments. Continue if you wish. It seems I may be your only friend.

                    • Yes the carbon cycle is different from CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon cycle is a cycle. If you paid one iota of attention, you might have figured that out without looking stupid.

                    • Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’

                      You need to apologise for spreading non-truth.

                    • I am not sure Eisenstein actually said that but Socrates — ‘When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.’ Seems to fit you.

                    • Slander is verbal. I only wrote you. Besides, you are yet to show me any ‘slander’ It’s easy to show yours insults.

                      If you paid one iota of attention, you might have figured that out without looking stupid.

                      Today must be Opposite Day. Because the opposite of what you drivel-typed is true

                    • You are dragging me down to your level, so I will only stand by my comment that you do not seem to comprehend what the carbon cycle means. Plants and animals are part of that cycle. Plants only temporary store carbon until it is cycled back. Some carbon can be stored long term in sinks, but humans have been releasing that stored carbon for over 150 years. When we do the math, the net increase of CO2 and methane emmisions is having a drastic effect.

                    • So, you were wrong about the slander too.
                      According to you we have no doul on earth, and fossil fuels don’t exist.

                      Pathetic.

                    • The only thing that is pathetic, is your unwillingness to do simple math. My premise is only that humans are extracting more stored carbon than what can be replenished. Is that really so hard to comprehend? As for the “slander” you quoted Einstein and I could not find that quote. I posted a similar documented quote by Socrates that really had nothing to do with you. Your refusal to back up any of your claims with facts and only attacks makes you seem trivial and pathetic.

                    • Oh Curtis. You are so angry now? Why are you angry at me, when it’s your reasoning that failed?
                      What claims have I made that I did not back up?
                      Your Socrates quote shot you in the foot. Let me drive that in more: unlike Einstein, there is no evidence that Socrates actually existed!

                      Now, I’m waiting for you to retract your original claim. You already argued againt it anyway. But I want you to retract it, publicly.

                    • Wrong. I’m not arguing, I’m asking you questions.

                      That you can’t tell the difference shows me that you’re not worth my time.

                    • My previous post disappeared, so I will write it again.
                      1. You assume I am angry. You made that statement and it was not a question. In reality I am very sad for you.
                      2. You assumed I said you were slandering, when in reality I was trying to find the quote that you attributed to Einstein. I could not find your quote anywhere, which means you probably said it wrong.
                      3. I believe your statement is that I said that plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle. I tried to clarify, but you do not read very well. The carbon cycle can take millennia to store coal, oil and gas via carbon sinks. At this point in time there isn’t a net decrease. In fact this is evidenced by the increasing CO2 and methane. We are putting it back into the cycle at breakneck speed.
                      4. A very interesting look at how plants affect CO2 each season. Notice how most vegetation is North of the tropics. (The tropics do not have severe seasonal fluctuations. https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.VzdT5HNlDqA
                      5. As for “no soil” on the planet ” this is another one of your lack of questions and just playing “gotcha”. People who play that game do not intend to debate with any intellect. They think that they can win a scientific argument by fiat. You sort of fell into a trap here, because soils are also used by plants to put on growth. Top soils are often not very deep on the earth and are in fact being depleted due to industrial farming. The Dust Bowl in the early 1900’s showed us what happens when all the soil is blown away.
                      6. Permafrost is also part of the carbon cycle. The dead plant matter in the permafrost is melting more each year. By raising the temperatures, we are causing a greater feedback loop of more released methane and CO2.

                    • It’s ok to be loud. It’s ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, on a Disqus forum, like you, is rather pathetic.

                    • You are an interesting person. You do not seem to have any opinion, you just seem to like trying to anger people. This tactic really has no effect except to make you look petty.

                    • Are you still angry?
                      Why are you angry at me, when it’s your reasoning that failed?
                      What claims have I made that I did not back up?
                      Do you have examples slander towardes you – can you evidence it?

                      When will you retract your original claim? You already argued againt it anyway. There is a net loss of carbon to the enviroment given that many plants are alive and growing (putting on more volume/mass) and not all dead plants are burnt for fuel.
                      But, I want you to retract it, publicly.

                      Get to it.

                    • 1. Never angry. Just sad for the children.
                      2. You argue with no evidence.
                      3. I am unsure what claim I need to retract. The carbon cycle is a cycle. This means that even carbon sinks can be brought back into the cycle once released. In fact as the permafrost melts in the artic, even more CO2 and methane gasses will be released back into the cycle.
                      4. There is only a gross decrease in CO2 in the northern hemisphere during fall and early winter. May is the highest CO2 month. There is not a net decrease in CO2. Every year CO2 increases above the year before.

                    • Retract your false claim.
                      You and I know exactly which one it is. I posted it to you many times, just read the fist post I made to you.
                      If you fail again, then this will be my last post to you.

                    • Actually it does support my claim. Plants do not remove carbon from the carbon cycle. Plants grow, removing carbon, plants die and release that same carbon back into the atmosphere. Year after year the atmospheric carbon levels are going up which shows that we are burning and releasing more carbon than what naturally would be stored away into carbon sinks.

                    • “plants die and release that same carbon back into the atmosphere.”.

                      No.
                      It only gets convered to CO2 when we burn it.
                      If we don’t burn it, then it remains as sugar & carbon (not CO2), we call it soil and we have lots of it.

                    • Our discussion is about the entire carbon cycle. CO2 and methane are gas forms that contain carbon. The carbon cycle is a very fascinating and complex topic, but you cannot get past the simple fact that CO2 contains carbon?

                    • So, you’re in agreement that your reasoning failed.
                      Why is it so gard for you to retract your oniginal claim then?
                      You keep on admitted that you’re wrong, yet you refuse to retract yhat claim.
                      That’s why I don’t trust you.

                    • No I do not agree. I have stated many facts here. I simplified them so people can understand which can technically make them wrong. To post every variable and complex mechanism would make most people fall asleep or quit reading. You can not even take in the simple concepts such as carbon is inside CO2 so it proves that dumbing down is necessary.

                    • My original statement that you seem to have a problem with is
                      “plants use carbon atoms to put on growth. They do not remove carbon from the carbon cycle. They just store it.”
                      I stand by this statement. The storage comes in many forms. Carbohydrates, carbon in plant tissues, organic plant soils (basically decomposing plants). All these things are only temporary storage and eventually cycle back as CO2 or methane.
                      Longer term storage devices can include oils, gases, coal and permafrost.
                      In water, Carbon has a completely different cycle which is more complicated.

                    • “All these things are only temporary storage and eventually cycle back as CO2 or methane. ”

                      Yet we have soil.

                    • Yes and soil is made up of sand and decaying plant matter AKA humus. As soil decays it is reused by plants and the decomposition by insects and microorganisms emit CO2 or reabsorbed by new plants. It is a cycle. There isn’t any permanent storage with these mechanisms.

                    • Your statement is wrong give than you have admitted that we have soil (which is dead plants, sugars that are not yet released as CO2).

                    • Slander is not just verbal. My lesson to you was that if you quote someone, you should use the exact quote. I could not find the Einstein quote listed. Did you just invent it and pretend Einstein said that?

                    • Slander is not just verbal?
                      You don’t get to reinvent meaning of words.
                      Just because you can’t find the Einstein quote does not imply I can’t use it, or that it does not exist, or that it’s not accurate, or that it does not apply to you.
                      You are playing red herring here, your logical fallacy. You want to avoid the fact that your reasoning failed, that you can’t defend your drivel.

                    • Look up slander in the dictionary. I did.
                      Can you post a link to this quote you attributed to Einstein?.
                      You will never win.

                    • More assertion falacies from you.
                      You need to send me your definition of slander statings its written insults. Look up slander vs libel. Good luck. None of the ones I looked at supports your claim.
                      As for the Einstein quote. Look it up. I refuse to do your homework for you.

                      You sre now on your red herring hunt. Get back to the topic at hand, admit to your mistakes.

                    • You can’t find the Einstein quote?. The definition of Slander changes depending on if it is used as a noun or a verb.
                      You keep talking about that Socrates quote like it was a personal attack. You must not speak English as your first language because you are having a hard time understanding.

                    • It was an observation based on evidence that you presented. Not an insult. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                    • “The definition of Slander changes depending on if it is used as a noun or a verb.”

                      Really.
                      Does it support your claim?

                    • So, “plants do not remove CO2 from the carbon cycle, they store it” is factually correct?

                      If it was correct, then we would have no soil, or any fossil fuels.

                      I couldn’t begin to express how very bored I am with reading your comments. Continue if you wish. It seems I may be your only friend..

                • Actually I believe that the longer we wait to start addressing this issue, the greater the economic collapse will be. It is like investments when you are 20 yo. Those investments into a 401k are worth so much more than the investments made as a 60 yo. The beauty of compound interest! A small investment every year can help to change the future 50 years from now. The biggest problem is that so many 20yos only think about today and never invest anything at the age of 20. This analogy is very applicable to what global warming deniers are doing to our future.

                  • I sure do not look at them in a similar way. Investing wealth for the future is prudent and wise. Collectively committing economic suicide and servitude based on faulty models and a non issue, is insanity. While conservation and trying to be clean is a virtue, the best way is through prosperity. People who are wealthy do not live in dirty environments for long – they clean them up while remaining wealthy. Concentrate on the worst first – China and India. Also realize it is not so-called fossil fuel per say, but how they are used. Low tech combustion is a problem, while high tech and modern combustion is not.
                    But, the biggest fallacy is the fear of CO2 and the belief that it is a pollutant – it is a vital part of the life cycle and is handled properly and effortlessly by biology – the more CO2 plants have the better they grow, and the less water they use. Commercial green houses will increase CO2 levels to around 1000 -1200 ppm to increase growth rate. The U.S. Navy controls air in their nuclear submarines to include about 4000-5000 ppm CO2 with no negative affect on human performance, but it slows the burn rate of fire.

                    • I also do not view CO2 or methane as a “pollutant”. CO2 is clear and odorless. It has beneficial effects on plant life. I do however understand that an excess of a ” good thing” can lead to negative effects. As with all cost to benefit analysis, we must weigh these issues. In my opinion there are more benefits and less costs if we address this issue early. I do not believe in the liberal taxation that some people would impose. I believe in incentives and encouragement through tax and credit policies. We should tax those things that we wish to discourage and then take that money to repay those people that do the right thing. This should be a tax neutral policy where the money collected goes to those that invest properly. They key is to make these decisions pragmatically and without political agenda. I know that is asking a lot from politicians that take money from special interests, but this is my utopian view of what should happen. As a more conservative individual, I wish that other conservatives would open their minds before the Liberals get their tax talons into our wallets. I say all of this out of love and hope to convince my more conservative friends that some action now can mitigate a future of over reaction by Liberals who will take your taxes and spend it on pet projects. This argument will not be won by denial. This argument can only be mitigated by making sure the proper public policies are enacted early. There are several other benefits to enacting policy now that would serve other conservative agenda including national security and preservation of America’s dominant economic position.

                    • While too much of a good thing can be bad, no one can demonstrate what that limit is with atmospheric CO2, assuming those limits are under 1000ppm. The truth is, we could not raise CO2 to those limits no matter how hard we tried – which we would never do. Nature has self-limiting mechanisms that are not fully understood, to say the least.

                    • And you are willing to stake the human race future (your children and their legacy ) survival on what you do not know? What we can know it that math can be use to predict the increased warming effect when CO2 rises. We go back to proving that 1 CO2 and methane are not greenhouse gasses, or 2 that these gasses are not increasing in our atmosphere. The second part will be harder to prove, since testing is done on a daily basis and well documented in Hawaii. The first part has been proven, but there is a slight possibility someone made a mistake.
                      Some people will make the argument that many hundreds of thousands of years ago CO2 and methane were a lot higher. This is very true, however the animals that live today including humans are not ready for the atmospheric conditions of several hundreds of thousand years ago. The earth will survive our indiscriminate carbon inputs, but the life of this Earth as we know it may not fair quite as well. I would fully agree that we do not know all of the consequences of our actions. That is a bit scary not knowing what sort of world we are leaving our next generations. Will they spit on the ground in disgust when they say our names?

                    • There is no significant threat to our survival over CO2 concentrations. There is little we could do to affect the concentration in the atmosphere, nor do we have the wisdom to do so. Natural forces are much more powerful – some we probably do not even know about. We clearly do not know everything and to assume so is foolhardy. You and your ilk like to say the science is settled, but if that is the case, why are we still wasting untold $billions on the issue in universities and government agencies? All those wasted PhD dissertations on something already settled.
                      One thing we do know is the far-left wants to destroy industrialized society, globally. That would result in the deaths of billions – a mortal sin. So no, I am not willing to do that. I will gladly take my chances doing the opposite as the far-left wants. There’s is a one-way mission of death and misery.

                    • Unfortunately all you did was spout a bunch of rhetoric that has no real provable evidence to support it. We are going to waste countless billions in the future if we do not start changing our mindset. We spend countless bellions in the Middle East when we could have ignored them if they did not have any oil. We give all sorts of tax subsidies to the fossil fuel sector including tax credits for investment costs. We will spend countless billions on refugees from global weather and flooding consequences. Inaction will be much more costly than a few billion for research and mitigation in today’s economy. The sooner we wake up, the less of a problem this will be. Almost every other citizen of every other country looks at Americans and shakes their head wondering how we could be so stupid.it is just a bit embarrassing.

                    • We are wasting the same billions supporting the oil and gas industry. Can you not see that simple math? I am not a supporter of any taxes unless they support change in behavior. Supporting oil and gas subsidies is just plain stupid. I recently drove through Ohio and they are building a pipeline to export natural gas to other countries. Does this make sense at all? Export our products to China where they can take more jobs from us?. This is insanity.

                    • Oil and gas companies do not get subsidies – they do not get checks from the government, instead they pay $billions in taxes. They deduct operational expenses from income like every other profitable business. Wind and solar companies on the other hand get massive subsidies, without which they would go bankrupt. Pipelines and exporting make good economic sense and are business decisions, not political ones. It is clear you have zero business experience and are clueless about economics and national security.

                    • You may buy into the propaganda that oil and gas companies produce to try to convince the voter that they pay a huge amount of taxes, but the tax code really says otherwise. There are multiple ways that the tax code is manipulated in order to maximize profits that can be considered “tax subsidies”. They may call them by other names such as ” write offs” or “deferrals”, yet they all end up as being money in the pockets of investors and corporations.
                      http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks this web site is notoriously biased, but it does spell out some of the exploited loopholes.

                    • That is such a silly argument. All successful corporations, non-profit and for-profit companies use the tax code to write-off as much as possible. BTW, when I checked several years ago, Exxon/Mobil paid in excess of $35Billion in taxes per year. They had a huge amount of revenue and high operation costs that are paid off revenue. The Government makes more off the oil than Exxon/Mobil does in net profit.
                      The only thing Mother-Jones is good for is to serve as a bad example and a waste of bandwidth.

                    • It is not a “silly argument”. It is just math and archaic laws tailored just for sheltering money and milking tax payers. I would agree that Mother Jones is abhorrent for its political skat, but you are actually no better. Neither of you are objective. This particular article published on Mother Jones was actually quite factual and even missed a few tax breaks that wealthy people use to avoid taxes. If you do not take my word for it then look to investment accounting websites like this one. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp

                    • I do not believe in the liberal taxation that some people would impose. I believe in incentives and encouragement through tax and credit policies.

                      So, you are against a carbon tax, but for paying ‘polluters’ not to pollute?
                      That flies in the face of logic.

                    • No, I believe that positive and negative reinforcement of the policies we wish to have can change our path without taking away choice.
                      For example. Tax gasoline and diesel at the federal level. Put that extra money towards tax credits for buying electric cars.

                    • Err,
                      That contradicts what you said before.
                      Now you want a carbon tax. But you want gst/vat tax on electric cars to be reduced (and for the carbon tax to cover that gst/vat reduction difference).

                      Currently there are two options, carbon tax or incentives for polluters.
                      You have not decided which one you support – that is if I ignore your two contradictory claims.

                      Btw, are you a politician. It’s been a while since I read a sentence that says nothing:

                      No, I believe that positive and negative reinforcement of the policies we wish to have can change our path without taking away choice.

                    • Actually you fail to understand the nuance. I support taxes that are repaid to incentive behavior that benefits all. I do not think a carbon tax is the answer because corporations will game the system. I support punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior to balance the cost benefit analysis which we all do in our daily lives. I do not support any tax that can be used for other purposes. It should be tax neutral. Governments all over the world incentivize birth rate by adding tax credits. They incentivize oil and gas products with many tax credits and rebates. What if those incentives were eliminated and placed on behavior and choices that reduced population and oil and gas consumption?

                    • The problem with your scheme is that it does not exist.
                      There are multiple problems with it, in that only the rich and corporations will benefit (get the tax credit).

                      You’re no politician, just trying to be one.

                    • There are problems with all things government does. There is no surprise that you can find some, however to make the scheme work, the tax breaks would have to be targeted to the vast middle class and companies and the penalties would also target the same people. The rich can already afford to convert.

                    • Now you are back to penalties as well.
                      Incentives (Tax breaks) for the rich and companies.
                      Tax for all.
                      Lol.

                      Thank god your not a political policy drafter.

                    • John, apparently you have little intelligence and have problems reading my nuanced opinion. You are not unlike many people that try to argue for the ruination of our children. Kudos to you for being so close minded 😉

                    • No, I don’t think I’m smarter than the people who actually study this. That’s your department, remember?

                      Einstein said ‘When a person resorts to insults, he has no argument to give.’

                      You resorted to insults, which signals that you can’t defend your drivel. It’s over.

                      Enjoy your delusion.

                    • My frustration aside, your lack of willingness to even consider my point of view is why I determined you have little intelligence. It shows in your attacks and insults rather than any real debate. You say I am tossing insults, but a quick read backwards shows that you have denigrated my opinion several times.

                    • You have yet to deice what you support.
                      And then you need to make it coherent.
                      You have failed with both, yet you insult me for your failure.

                      How is that logical?

                    • Your previous post was not accurate. I have been extremely patient with your personal insults and lack of research. You have some knowledge on the topic, but you are missing very key points. I understand that very few people actually understand the full carbon cycle and that is frustrating to me.

                    • You don’t understand the carbon cycle.
                      And no, you have no idea how to craft policy to curb ACC.

  1. Scientists never registered and voted on the matter. Science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Theories are not confirmed via a voting process. The AGW conjecture is really full of holes. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any affect on climate. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science. The conjecture ignores the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. It is not just a matter of clouds. More heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined.

      • Molecule per molecule, H2O is a much stronger IR absorber than CO2 and H2O averages from one to two percent of the atmosphere yet CO2 stands at around .04%. Another major problem with the AGW conjecture is the radiant greenhouse effect itself. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effect of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiant greenhouse effect. So to on Earth. The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise because gravity limits cooling by convection. The convective greenhouse effect as derived from first principals accounts for all 33 degrees that has been observed. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gasses. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. It is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient ans has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases A radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture depends has not been observed on Earth nor on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere including Venus. If CO2 actually did affect climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Adding CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere actually lowers the lapse rate which results in cooling, not warming.

        • Except that your conjecture flys in the face of testable experiments. There are other reasons / variables that must be considered. Burning coal in China without scrubbers has led to increased particulate polution which blocks the green house effect and our oceans absorb a lot of the atmospheric CO2. Once we get to the tipping point where the permafrost starts melting, then atmospheric CO2 and methane will overwhelm our atmosphere. At this point, it will be too late to reverse

          • The irony is that the clean air act has actually LED to increased danger of global warming. We clean the polution, but not the carbon. I do not believe carbon is a pollutant, but the excess will lead to other problems. Conservatives really need to rethink this issue and take advantage of the financial opportunities that can be reaped. By denial, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to leave the world a better place for your children and to make some serious bank.

            • I believe that there are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. What we are doing, burning up our very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible it nuts. I would like to use climate change as an additional reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes for me to defend. The climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it. The real ecological problem is Man’s out of control population. If Man does not control his own population then Nature will, catastrophically. Population is the problem that we can and should solve. Trying to control the climate is a totally waste of time, energy, and resources.

              • Your are correct that there are other great reasons to start moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Even if all the climate deniers are correct, these same people would gladly accept less dependence on the middle East and cleaner world for their children. If oil was not exported from the middle East, those countries would be dirt poor.

                • The most important reason is that the supply is very finite yet the relatively recent surge in the Earth’s human population is in part dependent upon its use. Before the supply runs out, Mankind must completely switch to alternate sources of energy as well as reduce our human population to a level were these alternate forms of energy will be sufficient for our needs. Sure, technology has added maybe several hundred years till when the supply runs out which is not really long at all considering the history of Mankind and the history of the Earth. The clock is ticking.

          • My conjecture?. A major problem with climate science is that one cannot prove anything. There are too many variables. One cannot run definitive and repeatable experiments with the Earth’s climate. As I pointed out, there is no actual radiant greenhouse effect for particular pollution to block. Actually the oceans held a lot more CO2 during the last ice age then they do now because warmer oceans do not hold as much CO2 as cooler oceans. In the past CO2 levels have been more than ten times what they are today and during that time there were both warm periods and ice ages and no tipping point was ever achieved. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting, and higher sea levels but no tipping point was ever surpassed. In terms of LWIR absorption by gasses in the atmosphere, the primary so called greenhouse gas is H2O so much so that changes in other so called greenhouse gases makes little difference. If one includes all what happens in the atmosphere, H2O provides negative feedbacks to changes in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect on climate that these other greenhouse gasses could possible have. It is all a matter of science.

                • As far as the oceans holding more CO2 in the form of carbonic acid, this is not something I subscribe to. A lot of news media are talking about ocean acidification lately. The carbon cycle is something I have been interested in since the late 80’s. Liquid water is always trying to reach equilibrium between the 3 carbon species. Carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate. The oceans are so heavily buffered that they will resist a precipitous decline in pH. The carbonic acid that does slowly absorb, will soon precipitate out as carbonate. The oceans are one of our greatest assets as a carbon sink. The oceans are the great moderator in this debate.
                  As for the water vapor, I have less of an opinion about it. Water vapor seems too cool warm blooded animals when it evaporates and humidity seems to make it warmer. The actual temperature does not change. The irony is that warmer air can hold much more humidity than cooler air. If the temperatures increase, then humidity will only get worse.

                  • Colder water can hold a lot more CO2 as can warmer. From the paleoclimate record it is obvious that as an ice age ended and the oceans warmed more CO2 got added to the atmosphere and the reverse happened when the oceans cooled. Over a much longer period, tens to hundreds of millions of years, CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has been decreasing as both fossil fuel reserves and carbonate rocks have been increasing. Plants get their carbon from CO2. Additional CO2 is often pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth. In the distant past CO2 has been more than 10 times what it is today. The ASHRE standard for CO2 in an indoor environment for humans is .1% and right now we are at .04% so in terms of human comfort we have a long way to go. The oceans also do a lot to moderate our climate. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans.

                    H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the surface which is mostly some form of water to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. Adding more H2O to the atmosphere lowers the lapse rate which indicates that adding more H2O to the atmosphere has a cooling effect. Hence H2O provides a negative feedback to processes that cause warming.

                    • Water does not hold CO2 at all. It transforms into carbonic acid and then quickly starts transforming into bicarbonate and carbonate. After reaching a saturation point, no more CO2 is absorbed unless artificially dissolved. I run CO2 injection into my planted aquariums and perform this experiment ona daily basis. I have actually measured this effect and I can tell you it is not just something I read as an intellectual. Yes, plants need the bio available carbon in order to add more volume, but the carbon alone is not enough. Iron and nitrogen also play a huge role along various other elements. Everyone seems to think they are an expert at these topics, but never actually have observed the science. Many climate scientists do not understand what happens to carbon in water and that has led to much of the misunderstanding of global warming. Plants are not net users of carbon unless they are left to grow. As they rot or are harvested, that carbon reenters the carbon cycle.

                    • That’s very enlightened. Here’s a thought. Maybe humans should not have decimated marine life, including especially mullosks and corals which are highly effective carbon syncs when they are alive. What do you think?

                    • Coral reefs and any organism that utilizes calcium carbonate in their structures are defacto carbon sinks. They bind the carbon from the oceans into their structure and take carbon out of the carbon cycle as long as they are living. In this way they are equivalent to plants. The sherls and reefs have an added advantage because they can persist even after the animal is dead. This fact tends to lock calcium carbonate in the oceans longer than terrestrial plants. Eventually these shells and reefs do dissolve over time releasing the carbon back into the ecosystem. The more acidic the water, the faster this dissolution occurs.

  2. Nov 5, 2015 MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first ‘EVIDENCE’ global warming is ‘NOT REAL’

    Antarctica is growing not shrinking, the latest satellite records show. You might think this would be great news for all those scientists who have been warning us over the last few years about the impending horrors of “man-made global warming” but in fact they are not happy about it, not one bit.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

  3. Nov 29, 2015 Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

    Do you believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Want to help the IPCC with an embarrassing little statistical problem in their latest report? Want to win $100,000? Today James introduces you to Douglas J. Keenan’s $100,000 contest to identify trend-driven time series. Details are in the show notes. Good luck!

    https://youtu.be/hKl2ksAERS0

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/antarctica-might-go-green-say-scientists-only-2km-of-ice-and-50c-of-warming-to-go/ More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...