[ExI] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria

John K Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net
Wed Aug 5 05:48:12 UTC 2009

"Alfio Puglisi" <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>

> you seem to have a lot of faith in what science says about a period 450
> millions years ago

That's because in general our knowledge of the past is greater than out
knowledge of the future.

>  you don't believe models based on reliable historical records

Historical records? So you're saying these computer models claim to fame is
that they accurately predicted the past! And I can't comment on the paper
that you say made good predictions about the Pinatubo eruption because the
link you supplied is dead; but I'm guessing it said things would get a bit
cooler for a year or two. Not exactly a gutsy and astounding prediction now
is it.

> Do they [computer models] reliably predict a northward shift in tropical
> rain bands during the mid-Holocene? Yes.

Predicting the past is easy.

> Do they predict last glacial climates as cold as observed based on their
> included physics? Yes.

Predicting the past is easy.

> Do they reliably project rainfall changes in the New York in 20 years
> time - probably not.

Predicting the future is hard.

> Who cares what the CO2 level was 600 million years ago?

I care because I'm not just talking about 600 million years ago, at NO time
in the last 600 million years has CO2 levels been significantly lower than
now and during most of that time it was about 10 times higher than now,
sometimes closer to 15 or even 20. And yet life thrived.

> The vertical line description is another reference to the speed of the
> change, an argument that you seem unable to grasp

On a chart that plots the CO2 levels over the last 600 million years you'd
need an electron microscope to see that "vertical line" you're so terrified
of; assuming the damn thing even exists.

 John K Clark

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list