Thursday, March 26, 2015

7/7 Dissecting Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness regarding environmentalism and environmentalists

This is where it all started nearly three weeks ago.  Now, with a few adjustments, it's the final chapter of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I took the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this final installment we consider professor Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness regarding environmentalism and environmentalists.


Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:
  • Questions about climate
  • “Balance” in nature
  • The goals of environmentalists
1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (RL) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...

____________________________________________________
59:35 Lindzen: ... you're touching on something interesting, which is environmentalism, whatever it's nastiness and ugliness, it is largely an urban phenomena.  And I think it really, really depends on people having no sense of what nature is at all.
~ ~ ~
What an astoundingly hostile and ignorant thing to say.  

"Environmentalism" is a term defining an attitude towards recognizing the biological webs that sustain our planet's life support system - also known as our biosphere.

It's not a people, nor a party - but Lindzen won't allow himself to recognize that.  All he sees is enemies. 

Listen to Lindzen going straight for the jugular:
 "environmentalism = nastiness and ugliness"
Earlier it was likened to Eugenics, I'll admit, it's impossible for me to fathom the malicious mind that can conceive such an absurd connection.  

There's nothing rational about it, it's political theater and hate mongering for votes and profit, nothing more. 

Consider for a moment what "Environmentalism" actually is:

"environmentalism, political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities; through the adoption of forms of political, economic, and social organization that are thought to be necessary for, or at least conducive to, the benign treatment of the environment by humans; and through a reassessment of humanity’s relationship with nature. 
In various ways, environmentalism claims that living things other than humans, and the natural environment as a whole, are deserving of consideration in reasoning about the morality of political, economic, and social policies."

Why is that seen as such a threat???
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
57:00 Lindzen: It depends on attracting people for whom nature itself is almost a meaningless concept, and they'll believe anything.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

#6 Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - clouds, vapor, Iris Effect


This is the sixth part of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider professor Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness regarding his pet theory, clouds and "the iris effect" vs. what the science is discovering.


Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:
  • Questions about climate
  • “Balance” in nature
  • The goals of environmentalists
1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (RL) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...
________________________________________________
44:40  Lindzen: Remember the temperature at the equator has been pretty much the same as within a couple degrees for billions of years.  How much more stable do you want it?
~ ~ ~ 
That's not true.  Besides his train of logic is misleading.  

Equatorial heat being relatively stable is the product of evaporation and circulation patterns carrying the heat, (that's always streaming straight down on equatorial waters), out and away from the tropics and dissipating it onto the rest of the globe - it isn't any indication of some preordained global stability.  
~ ~ ~ 

TROPIC OCEANS HELP SCIENTISTS IN CLIMATE STUDY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY RECORD  March 4, 1994  Vol. 19 No. 19
Tropical ocean waters - long thought to have remained unaffected by Earth's past climate changes - may have cooled by 5C (9F) during the last ice age, scientists at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reported recently.
 The research, reported in the Feb. 4 issue of "Science," indicates 
 that tropical regions play a pivotal and previously underestimated 
 role in regulating Earth's climate.
~ ~ ~
OLDEST ICE CORE FROM THE TROPICS RECOVERED, NEW ICE AGE EVIDENCE, 12/3/98
Lonnie Thompson, professor of geological sciences and research scientist with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, said that the new cores are the best evidence yet that the tropics were much cooler during the last glacial stage.
~ ~ ~
On top of that, in Lindzen's zeal to oversimplify he never mentions complicating factors that will have major impacts, such as:

Apr. 2, 2013 — One often ignored consequence of global climate change is that the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere, which could significantly alter tropical precipitation ... full story
________________________________________________
45:50  Alex: Alright, it's amazingly stable, but I mean there are many physical properties of things that are stable too,  but they don't have a goal per se.  Like a living being, if it's not evolved to self regulate in that way. 
Lindzen:  No, I mean presumably if they haven't exist the planet wouldn't have survived, so it's a matter of selection.
~ ~ ~
This is a bit obtuse, is the professor really attributing Earth's "survival" to Darwinian selection?  Hmmm, nothing is off limits for his game of confusion, is it?  I wonder how Mars and Venus managed to survive?

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Ooops! Watts posited Anthony? pine beetle and forest fires

Anthony came up with another weird post today, I know.  Using a just released study that claims pine beetle killed forests aren't any more likely to burn than dry healthy forests, he rips Joe Romm for an article he wrote a couple years ago about drying forests, warmer temperatures, and even increased bark beetle infestations, conspiring to increase fire danger as we move forward, and then he tippy toes off stage to let his fans chew on the bones.
______________________________

"Ooops! Posited pine beetle to increased wildfire risk debunked by CU study"
Anthony Watts / March 24, 2015
It has been posited by paid alarmists like Joe Romm that global warming will increase pine beetle outbreaks, thus increasing the chances of wildfire. For example, in April 2013 Romm wailed:
“…the mountain pine beetle, has already killed 70,000 square miles of trees — area the size of Washington state. As winters become milder, weather becomes drier and higher elevations become warmer, bark beetles are able to thrive and extend their ranges northward. 
An increase in some species of bark beetle can actually increase the risk of forest fires in areas affected by the beetle — the study notes an outbreak of the mountain pine bark beetle, which attacks and kills live trees, created a “perfect storm” in 2006 in Washington, where affected lodgepole pines burned “with exceptionally high intensity.” 
From the University of Colorado at Boulder: 
"Western forests decimated by pine beetles not more likely to burn" (see the bottom for quotes from this study)
______________________________

Anthony, nor is it any less likely to burn! 
Bark beetle infestations are continuing to decimate healthy forests throughout the world.
Temperatures continue to increase.
Watersheds continue drying out.
Fire danger continues rising.

Anthony, how is that study supposed to change any of that?  What's with the weird glee?

Monday, March 23, 2015

Dear Professor Dick Lindzen

Sharing an email I sent to the professor this evening:

Professor Dick Lindzen, 

Going through your 2012 interview with Alex Epstein at his Power Hour* and examining your various tricks and obfuscations, I'm amazed that real people of power have allowed you your long destructive career as a merchant of science fiction.

What I find difficult to grasp is when did it become OK to treat scientifically factual evidence with malicious contempt; and worse - with license to contort and misrepresent?  And when did it become OK to reject constructive honest learning in favor of clinging to faith based dogmas and short-sighted self-interest?

It seems like you've been on a way too long post retirement career dedicated to dumbing down our leaders and the public about the critically important topic of humanity's impact on our life supporting biosphere.  You must be feeling smug - you and your pals sure have succeeded.  

What do you care that the young ones get to deal with the mess that ignoring our Grand Geophysical Experiment for decades has created.

Though, guess I do understand why our leaders and society succumbed to your siren song - admitting the obvious would have required us to figure out how to be happy with a little less.  We couldn't do that, now could we?

Shame on you.


With deep sorrow,

Citizenschallenge
________________________________________________

Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness

part one - the "real" questions
part two - the conspiracy
part three - the government driving AGW
part four - nature in balance? 
part five -  spurious feedback mechanisms

________________________________________________

PS - This is what science looks like:
{followed by 176 myths addressed by SkepticalScience.com


Climate Change 2013: Working Group 1 - 
The Physical Science Basis

#5-Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - Spurious feedback mechanisms

This is the fifth part of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider professor Lindzen's obtuse misrepresentation of climate feedback mechanisms.

{ link to part one (the "real" questions)part two (the conspiracy), part three (the government driving AGW), part four (Nature in Balance?) }

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:
  • Questions about climate
  • “Balance” in nature
  • The goals of environmentalists
1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (RL) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority.
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...
________________________________________________
44:30  Lindzen:  In the models used for projecting alarm,the system is riddled with positive feedbacks, were whatever man does is amplified.  
~ ~ ~
Never any attempt to teach anything, it's just a flood of negative opining that we are supposed to accept because the dear professor says so.

And always with the doubt-mongering: "models used for projecting alarm"  Lindzen never acknowledges that the ever improving models are reflecting our real world phenomena plenty accurate and it's the situation, not the models, that is alarming!
- - -
Professor Lindzen want's us to ignore that it's down to Earth observations and not "climate models" that make us sure:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Climate change: How do we know?

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Sea level rise

Global temperature rise

Warming oceans

Shrinking ice sheets

Declining Arctic sea ice

Glacial retreat

Extreme events

Ocean acidification

Decreased snow cover

They neglected to mention the "Declining Antarctic glaciers"



________________________________________________
Lindzen:  For example, if you just double CO2 and had no feedbacks, and no stabilizing elements, you'd get about a degree of warming. That frankly no one really worries about. 
~ ~ ~
Obtuse like a fox. 

Sunday, March 22, 2015

#4-Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - Nature in Balance?

{final edit Sunday evening}

This is the fourth part of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen on his "Power Hour" program.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider Alex and Lindzen's confusion regarding what environmentalists mean when they discuss the "Balance of Nature".

{ link to part one (the "real" questions)part two (the conspiracy), part three (the government driving AGW) }

_______________________________________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen 
Alex Epstein | October 22, 2012 | Episode 31
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:
  • Questions about climate
  • “Balance” in nature
  • The goals of environmentalists
1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority. 
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...
__________________________________________________________
26:30  Lindzen:  ... I think with eugenics it was.  You know, eugenics is the environmentalism of the first third of the twentieth century.
37:05  Alex: I guess there's this negative disposition in environmentalism towards man changing any part of nature as such. 
~ ~ ~
Please stop.  We can always find extremists who believe extreme thoughts, so let's forget the strawman.   

Believe it or not, "environmentalists" live in this real world.    We appreciate that the act of living requires us to take from the "natural" world around us.  We love our modern comforts as much as anyone, although we do have lower expectations for what it takes to satisfy our respective comfort levels.  

What makes us so threatening?  Is it that we have a visceral/spiritual connection to the open lands and oceans and clouds flying through our skies?  Is it our attitude of minimalism over gluttony?  Is it that we believe people need to live with less material expectations? 

And what is it that makes "Environmentalism" so incomprehensible to Republican/libertarian types?  

What's wrong with appreciating the Earth around us, the natural world, it's wonders and critters, accepting them as real entities that deserve our respect and striving to understand and nurture?

What's wrong with appreciating that every economic transaction, besides it's benefits, includes costs and destruction, thus contains a moral dimension - and that those equations need to be recognized as we conduct our lives and business? 
____________________________________
Alex: And then the idea that he could be impacting the climate in any degree is considered morally wrong.
~ ~ ~
The "morally wrong" has to do with degrading the physical planet our children (and other creatures) are depending on!

What Alex doesn't appreciate is that humanity and our society has grown up within, and adapted to, a biosphere that's a direct result of the weather patterns produced within a specific and most advantageous climate regime (equilibrium plateau) that Earth had settled into quite recently in it's billions of years long history.

What Alex won't face is that we are supercharging that climate system (think, global heat and moisture distribution engine) back into a hothouse Earth, with serious weather pattern alterations inevitable.  These alterations will seriously disrupt the operation of our complex modern society.  As we are already getting a foretaste of.

____________________________________
37:35 Lindzen:  I think you've got an important point there. 

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

#3-Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - Government is driving AGW

 This is the third part (link to part one, part two) of my review of an interview by Alex Epstein with Professor Richard Lindzen.  I've taken the time and trouble to transcribe much of it in order to focus on Lindzen's bizarre version of reality and to juxtapose it against history and the known science.  

In this installment we consider Alex and Lindzen's conviction that climate science is all a government plot of some kind.  Oh yeah, to rob us of our freedoms.  As if the developing AGW driven climate change we've allowed isn't going to radically curtail freedoms we take for granted today, over this next couple decades.  

_____________________________________________________

Power Hour: Questioning Climate Science with Dr. Richard Lindzen 
October 22, 2012 | Alex Epstein
Richard Lindzen joins Alex Epstein to talk about perspectives on climate change:
  • Questions about climate
  • “Balance” in nature
  • The goals of environmentalists
1:45  Alex:  Whenever I read one of his (R.L.) papers I get almost emotional just by the level of clarity and diligence and utter lack of any kind of appeal to authority. ...
3:05  Lindzen: What bothers me about this issue is the intrinsic obtuseness of the questions. ...
_____________________________________________________

15:30  Alex:  What set the direction of climate science in the past before this whole government hierarchy?
~ ~ ~ 
CC:  Originally?   
How about curiosity to understand why we had ice ages and tropical hot house ages on this planet through deep time.  

There was also the obvious purely utilitarian desire, if not need, to understand what drives global weather patterns {wasn't there professor?}  

Focusing on some vague "government hierarchy" is a game of fabricating political enemies. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
15:40  Lindzen:  "Oh, you know, there were problems that had come up.  Probably the most interesting problem was the ice age cycle, you had theories there and they were argued and tested.  There was the climate program of the 70s.  Ah as the paleo records become clearer. The Eocene was a fascinating climate period and people were trying to understand that.
~ ~ ~ 
What bothers me about Lindzen's calculated obtuseness is that he never acknowledges the pivotal role weather plays in our lives.  

Isn't it self-evident that, of course, many people, for many reasons, needed to learn as much as possible about weather?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lindzen: I mean it was very much a matter of, here are things that we see, how did that happen, how did it work.
~ ~ ~ 
Student's and scientist's desire to learn and understand remains as strong and passionate as ever!  But, you'd have to actually listen to them to know that.

I'd suggest the critically huge change over the past half century has been, our citizen's no longer demand honesty from information sources, and the Republican/libertarian PR machine has fully embraced repetition of lies, stonewalling and rejection of learning as a political strategy. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~