[ExI] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria

Alfio Puglisi alfio.puglisi at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 08:22:33 UTC 2009

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:34 AM, John K Clark<jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Me:
>>> Let me ask you something, if the  world's temperature increases
>>> will that create more clouds or fewer clouds?
> "Alfio Puglisi" <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
>> We don't know.
> Then how in hell do you have the balls to tell millions of poor people that
> they must starve to death on the basis of these half baked climate models?
> The computer models of sub prime mortgages were models of precision in
> comparison.

Because all known physics tells us that, if you put enough CO2 in the
atmosphere, global warming will result. And we are seeing a clear rise
in temperature. And we know that the current rise in CO2 and
temperature would be a *vertical line* on any climate graph of the
known Earth history, unlike anything we have seen before.

Somehow the clouds have failed to materialize to save the situation.

>> I find it interesting that you take the few unknowns in the models and use
>> them to invalidate the entire story.
> It only takes one unknown, even one far less significant than the total
> amount energy driving the climate regulated by clouds, to make climate
> models utter nonsense.

Can you show this numerically? If you can show, quantitatively, that
one or more of the current unknowns in the models are enough to mask
the cumulative (in the time axis) effect of CO2, water wapor and other
GHGs, you will have a point, but not yet.

> And yet you expect billions of people to quite
> literally bet their life on this crap!

And you still have to justify your "millions and billions" claim.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list