[ExI] [wta-talk] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Aug 8 18:15:09 UTC 2009

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Alfio Puglisi<alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ### You are familiar with the finding that for the most part CO2
>> concentration *trails* changes in historical temperatures? In other
>> words, CO2 is primarily forced by temperature, with only a secondary
>> feedback effect (presumably) acting the other way.
> I'm familiar with that finding, and it's precisely the finding that
> got a lot of people worried. We know that CO2 raises temperature. The
> ice cores show that, when temperature raise because of Earth's orbital
> changes, after a while CO2 goes up too. So you have two effects which
> increase each other, a classic case of positive feedback.

### Which prevents you from accurately measuring climate sensitivity
to CO2. Actually CO2 sensitivity is not a single number, it is a
matrix describing CO2 sensitivities under various conditions, and is
still unknown.

>> This essentially
>> precludes the use of ice core data for the purpose of estimating
>> climate sensitivity to CO2.
> On the contrary, it's precisely the raise of CO2 that allows the
> estimation: we know how many W/m^2 the orbital forcing does, and other
> feedbacks like ice sheets, etc. and thus how much the temperature
> should change to bring back the Earth into equilibrium. Turns out this
> insufficient to explain the ice age / interglacial cycle. The
> additional warming comes from CO2, and can be quantified. That's how
> the 3°C/doubling has been estimated.
### The relative strength of the other feedbacks is unknown (which is
why they are absent from current climate models, or guesstimated to
fit historical data).

>>> Given that most nations didn't even follow the Kyoto protocol, I find
>>> it difficult to understand how one could measure its cost. Can you
>>> give me a link for that number? How was it estimated?
>> http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
> That's not estimating anything, just running a counter with numbers.
> Since Kyoto has not been implemented by most countries that signed it,
> I still think the cost has been near zero.
### The cost of achieving an effect under Kyoto is as estimated. That
governments choose to pretend to subscribe to global warming theories
(and thus ratify Kyoto) and then refuse to actually act on the
agreement (thus demonstrating lack of belief in global warming), is
another issue.

>>  Also adaptation cost goes up with
>>> time.
>> ### Really? Why?
> Because, assuming CO2 emissions go on, the warming goes on too.

### Costs of CO2 mitigation also go up with time, if you prefer to
look at it this way. The more CO2 emissions you have to prevent, the
more you have to pay.

> I think that, rather than getting a prediction down the last degree,
> you have to show that bad outcomes have significant probability of
> occurring. Or do you play Russian roulette often?

### Define bad outcomes, and significant probability. Even the IPCC do
not predict a high likelihood of bad outcomes of global warming,

Since you asked me about Russian roulette, tell me, do you bet your
house on internet stock tips? Or should we avoid asking each other
such questions?

>> ### IPCC reports are an excerpt of data designed to support a
>> particular predetermined conclusion, namely the need to expand
>> government control of our lives.
> I know that this list has libertarian views but, come on. Renewable
> energy is a dynamic market environment with lots of startups and now
> some bigger firms. Solar allows distributed energy generation by
> individuals. While the technologies that should be phased out are
> mostly under government control!

### Renewable energy is almost entirely a creation of government
regulators (through subsidies for renewable energy and artificially
imposed burdens on effective energy sources, like nuclear or coal).
Also, an effect of moral grandstanding by yuppies who always look for
ways of showing how much better they are than the unwashed masses.
Without these two factors nobody would ever lift a finger to build a
windmill, except in some niche off-grid applications.
> Leaving apart your conspiracy theories,

### Don't insult me.


 if you think the IPCC gives a
> partial view of current scientific opinion, try to find some
> significant number of climate scientists with different views.

### Monopsony and political pressure in climate research funding
assures that a majority of researchers will toe the line, strive to
provide support for the official version and be wary of publishing
conflicting data. Look up Lysenkoism for a more crass version. Or read
some papers on amyloid and Alzheimer's disease for a spontaneous
monopsonistic aberration which occurred even without direct political


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list