Saturday
Mar132010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lindzen on TVO
Mar 13, 2010 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other Just watching a really interesting video interview of Richard Lindzen. It's long, but is actually worth the investment of time, which is not something I usually say about videos.
H/T Josh in the comments.
Update on Mar 13, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Just finished watching it - that is probably the most informative show on climate change I've ever seen.
Reader Comments (27)
Just finished. Excellent. Really well-rounded, I thought. It's a must-watch.
Two rational people having time to put their points properly. An intelligent discussion - what a pleasant change! Its fairly hard going in terms of sound quality [at least on my computer] but well worth it. Proxies took a very polite hammering as did climate models! Thanks Andrew for the link.
Sound was fine for me. Amazing video quality too I thought.
Two very credible scientists behaving like true scientists. Clearly the science is anything but "unequivocal". Thanks for bringing the video here.
Should be a 'must watch' for the HoC Science and Technology Committee and Muir Russell's team too. Oh yes! and Ed Milliband should be strapped to a chair and made to watch it twice.
Now that, is the video which should be obligatory in schools and parliament. I think it is outstanding. Definately the most refreshing civilised and informative debate that i have seen on climate change. I feel a new confidence in my position as a skeptic. I congratulate both parties in this illuminating and profoundly intelligent discussion. Full marks to the mediator for asking very simply stated direct questions to both parties. The exchange of intelligence is so much more educational than the usual exchange of ignorance. BRILLIANT
The best and most informative discussion on climate change so far. Very well balanced and to the topic..
What is interesting is that both have a very constrained view of the usefulness of GCM-based forecasts as opposed to the more reasonable role of exploring the interactions of physicial processes.
Brilliantly moderated, brilliant answers.
This was part of a 'climate change' series created by TVO (TV Ontario). Unfortunately, this particular segment was the only one to offer discussion of some aspects of the science and its attendant uncertainties. I'm afraid it was all 'down hill' in the following segments- pro AGW panels offering inexactitudes and lamenting the terrible treatment of certain climate scientists. It was obvious in the end that TVO did have an Agenda in mind and it did make me wonder where their pension fund was invested...
Great interview, thanks!
When the anchor asks Lindzen if there's evidence "that would make you doubt the position you currently take on climate change?" somebody else whispers "good question". WTF was that?
Lindzen: "If you look at space, you know how much cooling the Earth should produce..." ? So is there a 'universal constant' or optimum against which to measure the global mean temp? I thought that Lindzen and many others found that notion to be silly. So is this assertion a paradox or do I read it wrong?
Amazing how biased the slant of the program is - from the anchor to the dodgy graphs (they showed what I think is the 1997 IPPC Hockey Stick, or possibly it was the 2003 Stick) - the whole thrust is that AGW is real. What about that laughable graph of 400K years of CO2? Both scientists derided it.
Great recommendation, Bish, thanks; maybe the program will spark some healthy skepticism. OTOH, the final word about the dominant position of "ideologues" was, er, alarming.
As I heard it, it wasn't that someone unknown who whispered "good question". Hadi Dowlatibadi said it into his microphone, as the only other person wired up. I can't completely prove that but it's what I heard. If you were to show me a sworn statement from Dowlatibadi that it wasn't him I'd have to reconsider my hypothesis :)
For me that was pretty much the key moment. In saying it Dowlatibadi was, albeit obliquely, casting doubt on Lindzen's impartiality as a scientist. But Lindzen's answer was that of course he could be persuaded to become concerned about CO2 emissions by the data, if it showed positive feedback mechanisms at work. At the moment satellites seem to be showing precisely the opposite and that's why he isn't.
My own hunch is that the resolution of the Early Faint Sun Paradox through high cirrus clouds in the tropics is going to prove a landmark in the acceptance of negative feedbacks generally. That's a wonderful thing and rather helpful timing. We will owe a lot to Richard Lindzen and, in my mind, to the one sentient being who was around at the time two and a half billion years ago, shepherding his creation to its intended end: human beings that were going to be able to argue about such matters and, with the odd hiccup, uncover the truth about them.
Well it wasn't much of a debate. Two firmly committed sceptics going hard at it. The moderator tried his best to insert some different opinions (mostly from NASA) without much success. I got the impression the guy from BC felt overawed by Lindzen.
That said, it was a wonderful discussion and very informative.
The discussion between Lindzen and Dowlatibadi was polite with respect to the IPCC and its message in the same manner that the Wegman report was polite with respect to Michael Mann and his message.
They agreed that climate models are predictively useless. They agreed that the climate impact of aerosols is unknown. They agreed that the message of climate alarm is extreme and not supported by science, and they agreed that the committed partisanship of the IPCC influences the conclusions of its authors.
In short, they have falsified the entire climate change industry.
Even though he looks like a big furry bear, Lindzen is always worth listening to.
********Warning********
This video may offend:
Creationists who believe the earth to be 10,000 years old;
those for whom NASA creates warm and fuzzy feelings; and
the many that are entrenched in the IPCC message.
Great interview. And a new word, perhaps: The ouija effect: several scientists manipulating both each other and the science, consciously or not, and reaching a common "consensus".
Great interview.
And a new word, perhaps: The ouija effect: several scientists manipulating both each other and the science, consciously or not, and reaching a common "consensus".
I believe the spaghetti chart at 28:00 is actually one of the "hide the decline" charts. It neglects Briffa data after 1960, despite there being more data available. Unfortunately the trend headed south and didn't support the hypothesis that it was good proxy data. Rather then stating it was not good data for a temperature proxy, they just used it short and let it support the hypothesis. Neither guest took advantage of pointing this out as evidence of the ouija effect.
Here is the chart used in the video at 28:00 with data references:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Here is one of Steve McIntyre's posts on the Briffa data and HTD:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
When the anchor asks Lindzen if there's evidence "that would make you doubt the position you currently take on climate change?" somebody else whispers "good question". WTF was that?
What was that? It was a good question. It was a good question because I am pretty sure the anchor was alluding to Popper's empirical falsification principle. Which is an excellent proxy for determining whether someone is a scientist or an advocate.
So I thought it was a great question by a moderator that had obviously done some homework.
Thanks for posting this video.
"alluding to Popper's empirical falsification principle." -- exactly. Every theory should be falsifiable by something. Notice Linzden had an answer. I doubt an ice age would falsify AGW.
TonyN, I agree entirely. But David Cameron and Geg Clark also need to watch it.
Actually what I saw was a slight moving of the goalposts, which I've seen elsewhere.
CAGW is being reframed on the 'yes nothing overall changes but will there be changes within the enviroment that are detrimental'...the biggest of these is the acidification scare.
I see this as the last stand of AGW as it becomes obvious that we are not about to burn, and that the earths heat engine is not and will not be broken by increasing CO2; to keep the money making effort going there needs to be "residual" impacts from CO2 that are not temp related. This will allow carbon trading to continue.
Brilliant! Everybody should see this
Carlsberg don't make climate change documentaries, but if they did...
Just got around to watching that in its entirety, and it's about the only climate change programme I've seen which didn't make me want to smash the TV. No agenda from the anchor, polite exchanges between the two interviewees, long enough for the issues to be covered in depth. Absolute quality.
Both participants represented their side admirably. Lindzen great as usual - very hard for the warmists to demonise him in their usual terms as a 'swivel eyed fanatic' or similar. But Hadi Dowlatibadi was also very impressive, and perhaps an early indicator of the changed tactics of the AGW proponents - quiet reasonableness taking over from Holocaust denial / Flat Earth comparisons. However, I agree with the previous comments that this is moving the goalposts - ocean acidification apparently being the new rock'n'roll...
This show is made in Ontario, Canada, by TVO. IMHO it is the best of its kind anywhere. Steve Paikin has an amazing poker face-- no matter what topic is being discussed he never betrays his own feelings.
Saddly, during the remaining 3 parts of this topic the obvious questions were never asked which felt very out of character for the show.. the shows online forum didn't provide much in terms of answers.
It's nice to see that this episode is picking up traction elsewhere. Go The Agenda!! :)