Is Science Progressing? (featuring Richard Lindzen)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Follow the link below to watch the full event:
www.cato.org/ev...
Featuring Richard S. Lindzen, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute; Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; moderated by Patrick Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute.
For many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60's have powerful elements that serve to inhibit major developments. Dr. Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist, and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.
Quantification of the effects of the support structure is complicated. There are a multiplicity of factors involved, including the existence of branches of science that are closely associated with political and social agendas. Changes in the character of major research centers, including the federalization of major research universities, also plays a major role, independent of the particular area of science. Serious studies of marginal factors such as diminishing returns as funding increases are sorely lacking.
Video produced by Blair Gwaltney.
Why doesn't this have more views?
Because peolpe refuse to listen to anything complicated
Because no doubt they suppress his views. This guys a climate scientist from MIT. Think we might need to listen before we spend trillions and cripple our economy while China and Russia are coming for our spot.
@Pat Walker That is slander. Do you only listen to what your Marxist professors tell you?
Because not enough people share it!
Because UA-cam has buried it.
So sad there's only 17k views six years after posting.
Too much reasonings. People wants fear, finger-pointing, scapegoats, … Greta works, scientists, no matter what they say, don't.
@@konverzaktion2393 Wrong. Scientists are believed and accepted by the vast majority if they are honest.
Lindzen is a proven liar and misinformer who says smoking isn't a health hazard who has been told by MIT he is wrong.
Michaels was outed as a liar and data manipulator decades ago and is 40% funded by the FF industry to do so.
The Cato Institute, aka Charles and David Koch Propaganda and Lies Inc.
@@boffeycn Then we don't need Greta, right? Then, why is she there? To provide drama, sensationalism, to reduce the number of hours teenagers attend school and give them more time to do school strike to say obvious things like we want a better life, we also want a future life for us and our children, and so on? What's the real purpose of all this if you are right? Why in place of Greta there isn't an acclaimed “honest” scientist?
@@konverzaktion2393 "Then we don't need Greta, right?" A comment like that proves you are a total fucking idiot, doesn't it.
"Why in place of Greta there isn't an acclaimed “honest” scientist?" As does that.
Then we don't need Lindzen right?
Then we don't need the Exxon/Peabody/Koch axis funding the lying scientists, right?
Then we don't need the biblical literalists, i.e. the majority of the deniers, believing the bible tells the truth right?
Why in place of a lying decrepit, geriatric, male scientist told by his Uni he is wrong there isn't an honest young female?"
Try taking your head out of the idiot box for a while.
Why are you so obsessed with and frightened by a young female telling the truth? You must be seriously fucked up.
@@konverzaktion2393 Thanks for accepting you are full of shite.
I love Richard Lindzen, great scientist and he always says what he thinks!!!
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking." James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data." www.gem.wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen
Hosni Mubarak smears are all anybody has on Lindzen. He has debated alarmists many times, funny you have go all the way back to a 2001 hit piece on him and not a debate or talk of someone refuting his arguments. You hardly see, if ever, Hansen or Mann on a stage with men they disagree with. Those two titans of science should be able to put him in his place. They would rather be worshiped by others or pass out defamation lawsuits instead of dealing with science.
@@jessefontenot9846
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".
Lindzen may have been “eminent” a long, long time ago, but his big climate theory has been largely debunked. For quite some time he has been doing little but spreading disinformation. He’s even started publishing nonsense that has led to unusually strong debunkings by his colleagues:
Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is ‘seriously in error'”: Kevin Trenberth: The flaws in Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”
thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding
www.gem.wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen
Hosni Mubarak please, please, please guys you need to chill. You can’t debunk Lindzen. Send all the hit pieces you like. Lindzen’s whole point is that blaming CO2 is silly because the climate system is too complex. That’s what I don’t get about you guys. You’re trying too hard. Just admit you are fervently defending your belief system. Not settled science. Lindzen doesn’t make predictions. He simply is telling you you’re stupid if you think CO2 can control the climate. That’s all the “Deniers” are ever saying. If they found something wrong with one of his papers good. That’s actually how science is done. That’s not debunking HIS science, that’s science. You do realize that’s not what the AWG crowd is right? James Hanson made the public declaration 30 years ago and you refuse to let science take its course. Why?because it’s a political movement. Controlling carbon is controlling life.
Bash him some more go ahead. I’m not a Lindzen fan boy but I see plenty AWG fan boys like you in every chat room doing your best. If only you could use that energy for a more productive cause. That would be nice.
@@jessefontenot9846
So you deny CO2 in Earths atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas?
Just look at the history of science. Major scientific breakthroughs are sometimes hundreds of years apart! One cannot force these types of discoveries but merely attempt to foster them. Patience is the name of the game.
the scientific breakthroughs are not the problem. the problem is the science community trying to bury them.
Modeling a chaotic system like the Climat is not easy. Small initial differences
(in parameterised data) in these models lead to large gaps in the outcome. The
question is to what extent is a chaotic system predictable. Waiting 30 or 50 years
for confirmation/denial of the model is an other matter.
Well I was taught that when you develope a hypothesis the first test is does known data support it? If it doesn't then you start over! Now through out all known historic data Co2 rise has always trailed temperature rise by 200 to 800 years and CO2 drop ha followed temperature drop by 200 to 2000 years! So all of these fraudsters know that temperature drives Co2 levels!
You are right. Also, many are ignorant of chaos theory.
A great man :)
Data can and often should be the end of funding. Small wonder observation is so popular in the grant funded halls of "science". I worked in tourism industry for many years and have been told by govt. people they did not want to check results. They knew they were wasting money on politically popular events and projects.
Great and sensible scientist..
My Lindzen!
Case and point one of the biggest science channels on youtube Kurtzgesagt is funded by corporations...most of their videos are paid ads for their donors businesses and intrests ..
If my family has owned a house on the Atlantic coast of Florida and the edge of the house was an average of 722' from the shoreline back in 1895 when they bought it, how much would that average distance be changed by now in 2021? Assume there has been zero erosion.
Go down to Charleston SC and check out the warehouse docks that we built in the 1700s. They are now 5 miles from the Harbor!
The antithesis of Michael Mann's mawkish activism. An actual man of science, speaking rationally. What refreshment!
The Sun, repeat, THE SUN !!!!!
Yes first of all Solar Cycles and Milankovitc Cycles.
Wait and see how Solar Cycle 25 (after weak 23 - 24) turns out ...
Follow the money and the increase in bureaucracy.
Remember ? The science is never in !
Have got to get biased and ideology money out of science. This is dangerous
Kevin Odom not really... the bias has to be removed from the gatekeepers: when 90%+ of academics, probably higher percentages running the journals, etc are hard core leftists: that dictates what gets out to the world
He'll no we haven't had any real science since the 80s
Fact 1: By reflecting away 30% of the ISR the albedo & atmosphere that creates it together make earth cooler not warmer. RGHE has it wrong.
Fact 2: Because of the significant non-radiative heat transfer participation of the contiguous atmospheric molecules, BB LWIR upwelling "extra" energy from the surface for GHGs to "trap" is not possible. RGHE has it wrong.
Fact 3: No "extra" energy for GHGs means they cannot create any terrestrial warming. This hypothetical GHG warming loop also violates conservation of energy, perpetual motion and cold to hot without work. RGHE has it wrong.
Fact 4: Zero RGHE = Zero GHG terrestrial warming = Zero man caused global warming or climate change.
I don't explain acronyms. If you have done the homework you know what they mean. If you haven't done the homework - shut up!
Who cares? You can't deny
that the last three decades have been warmer than the previous one.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Can you prove it? The record books have been cooked. Plus 1.5 C over 140 years is UHI, instrument drift, noise in the data, R^2 of 0.2 or impossible to trend, trivial, insignificant, meaningless.
@@nxgrs74
Never mind the past 140 years. Even people like Richard Lindzen won't answer the question ''do you deny
that the last three decades have been warmer than the previous one''.
@@hosnimubarak8869
I don't know and I don't care because IT DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!!!!!
The greenhouse effect is bogus so all of the rest is MOOT!!
@@nxgrs74
Don't be silly. Even Exxon Mobile now admits CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Don’t believe me? See for yourself. corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/energy-and-carbon-summary/Energy-and-carbon-summary.pdf
man this guy is a bad speaker
Yes. Need to find his debates. He makes all alarmist look weak. Ones like bill nye talks about the world ending to scare people while this guy talks actual science.
@Kegga Puusi Are you thinking that payment for his professional testimony in Minnesota tarnishes his reputation?
@Kegga Puusi Lindzen is possibly the only critic of the scientific consensus on climate change who has an established record of actually working in the field. I only discovered a video of him speaking recently, and find his position compelling. So I have begun to examine his argument more closely. If you have any useful information, I will appreciate your comments. So far, there seems to be little directly opposing his position.
@@misterlyle. then I guess that makes Mann a total fraud because of all the monetary contributions that he takes
Mebbe you are/were a bad listener?