Maggie's Farm

The first half of the "lesson" is an appeal to Lindzen's authority. While we certainly grant that Lindzen is a published climate scientist, an appeal to authority is only valid when the cited expert is representing the consensus view of those in his field. For instance, Einstein rejected quantum theory, but the field continued to develop despite his views. Meanwhile, the Higgs boson was recently discovered, half a century after its prediction. In any case, an appeal to authority is always subordinate to the evidence.

As to the specifics of Lindzen's position:


AR5 found that it is likely (greater than 2/3 chance) that warming will exceed 1.5°C, and without mitigation is likely to exceed 2.0°C.


What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next!


Model projections for surface temperatures are close to what is observed. More specifically, without accounting for anthropogenic forcings, the warming trend can't be explained.


Lindzen conflates calibration with what he calls 'tuning'. Climate scientists use past climate history to help determine the values of parameters, such as climate sensitivity.


Sea level rise lags temperature. Detecting acceleration of sea level rise at this point is difficult. It may be a decade or two before acceleration is detectable.


Sure, but humans probably don't want to be suddenly thrust into one of those climate epochs.

This brings up an interesting point concerning appeals to authority. Lindzen wrote a letter to the U.S. President, who, it must be acknowledged, is not well educated in science. As the President doesn't have the means or knowledge necessary to evaluate the evidence himself, how is he to make a determination concerning policy?

Normally, the President would bring the most noted scientists in the field together, the vast majority of whom believe that anthropogenic global warming is a significant threat. He would balance the projected threat against other considerations, such as the cost of mitigation. From that, he would devise an appropriate policy, remembering that earlier mitigation will be less expensive, and will result in less environmental damage.

Of course, the current U.S. President purports to believe all sorts of things without evidence, whether it is that millions of illegal votes were cast in the last election, or that his predecessor was born outside the U.S., or tinfoil-hat stuff such as his phones were bugged by Obama. There are short-term gains and few direct short-term losses to be had in ignoring the problem, so the path of least resistance is clear. Cut science funding!

IdahoBob: It all reminds of the story of the Emporer who had no clothes.

We can observe the Emperor has no clothes. However, do observe the Earth's surface is warming, consistent with an increase in the greenhouse effect.

MissT: Bring it on. I will take the warmth...gladly. Had the worst winter ever where I live.

The problem with your position is that the effects of climate change will result in disruption of global ecosystems, as well as sea level rise which will displace millions of people. Not sure you can escape all aspects of climate change. For instance, Montana is usually considered far away from the concerns of industrialization, but mining has damaged water resources, while forests are being destroyed by pine beetles moving north due to climate change.

DrTorch: Actually, the climate models fail to reproduce the measurements.

Model projections for surface temperatures are close to what is observed. More specifically, without accounting for anthropogenic forcings, the warming trend can't be explained.

LWS: Except that NOAA changed the temperature record.

The original temperature record is available. Multiple, independent, statistical tests of the raw data confirm the warming trend.

LWS: all global warming is man made by virtue of data tampering.

As already pointed out, the original data is available, and multiple, independent, statistical tests of the raw data confirm the warming trend.

LWS: In 1999, Nasa showed US cooling from 1930 to 1998 ... In 2016, they changed the data to know show warming

The original chart is from Hansen 1999, based on GHCN data. However, this did not take into account station moves, differences in procedure, time of day, and other factors. See Hansen 2001.

IdahoBob: there was something called a mini ice age that lowered the earth's temperatures.

The Little Ice Age was probably caused by reduced solar activity and heightened volcanic activity.

IdahoBob: The current warming cycle began around 1850 long before SUVs. What caused it?

Increased solar activity and reduced volcanic activity.

Since 1950, solar activity has been relatively stable, while volcanic activity has increased slightly, so these factors cannot explain the current warming trend. Greenhouse gases are overwhelming the natural signal.

Assistant Village Idiot: No. This is absolutely false.

An appeal to authority is an inductive argument. Every field has cranks, so if you appeal to a crank, you are likely to get an opinion that is contrary to well-established findings in a field. A truthful expert will not only explain their own views, but will explain how they fit within the field generally, including whether theirs is a minority view or whether there is a strong division within the field.

If the expert is selected randomly, then the inductive argument may still be valid based on probability, but what often happens is that the cranks are positively filtered. They are brought forth to cast doubt on the consensus within the field, or to deceive the audience as to the actual findings within the field.

John A. Fleming: Not now, not ever.

So you're saying that the opinion of a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic is no better and no worse than your bartender's opinion when it comes to medical matters?

John A. Fleming: All of zu's narrative-constructing arguments are appeals to authority.

That's clearly not the case, as our original post included a direct response to the specifics of Lindzen's position.

John A. Fleming: If I had a wierdo affliction that required a "team of doctors" ...

Multiple specialists are often involved in treating diseases, such as cancer.

John A. Fleming: to decide on the diagnosis, I'd scoff and tell them that they haven't a clue and are just guessing, and are attempting to mask their ignorance and spread their liability to an "unassailable" authoritative collective.

So you think that doctors at the Mayo Clinic (or equivalent medical institution) would have no more knowledge of a medical condition than your bartender.

Your answer speaks for itself.

John A. Fleming: Medical decisions are not made by consensus among a "team" of doctors.

"Mayo Clinic doctors ... collaborate as team members. At Mayo Clinic, you don't get just one opinion, you get multiple opinions."

In any case, if you go to three oncologists and they say you have cancer, but your bartender says it's just indigestion, what do you think is the reasonable conclusion as to your condition?

Jim: The Z Brigade would have been fine with Galileo being burned at the stake.

Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for heresy.

At no point have we said people can't disagree, and specifically noted that an appeal to authority is always subordinate to the evidence.

Jim: In fact, Ptolemaic epicycles and "climate change" have a lot in common. The models get more and more complicated, but all fail to conform to empirical observation.

The Ptolemaic system was more accurate than Copernicus's model. The difference is that Galileo discovered independent evidence supporting Copernicanism, and with Newton's contributions, the Copernican system had a mechanistic explanation.

Climate models are mechanistic, and not mere curve-fitting. The Earth's climate is essentially a heat engine, and energy must be conserved across the system.

DrTorch: Curiously, you comment on it frequently, despite being ignorant.

This is where you enlighten us and our readers with your own understanding.

mudbug: No more than Democrats (e.g. Russian - Trump campaign collusion).

We know that the Russians hacked the DNC, then released information for the benefit of Trump's campaign; that the National Security Advisor was fired for lying about contacts with Russian agents, that Trump's campaign chair was associated with the pro-Russian government in Ukraine before resigning after allegations of illegal cash payments; that the Attorney General was less than fully truthful concerning his own contacts with Russian agents; that Trump's long-time advisor Roger Stone made contact with hackers thought to be a front for Russian agents; that other people associated with Trump had contact with Russia during the campaign; that Trump has repeatedly praised the autocratic head of the Russian government; that Trump insisted the RNC gut the Republican platform of its anti-Russian stance on the Ukraine (seriously, Trump has this one strong view of foreign policy while being completely ignorant of just about everything else). While this is insufficient to show collusion, it is certainly sufficient to warrant a closer look.

Now, compare to the complete lack of evidence that millions of illegal votes were cast in the last election, or that his predecessor was born outside the U.S., or tinfoil-hat stuff such as his phones were bugged by Obama.

mudbug: I can connect any number of dots that implicate Democrats colluding with the Russians

Oh? Did the Russians hack the RNC, and then release the stolen information in order to help the Democrats?

indyjonesouthere: you live on a diet of fake news.

Are you suggesting that the National Security Advisor was not fired for lying about his contacts with Russian agents? Or that advisors to the President didn't have contact with hackers associated with the Russian government? Or that, of all things, Trump had the Republican platform changed to minimize condemnation of Russian incursions into the Ukraine?

Or are you saying there is actual evidence that Obama was not born in the U.S?

indyjonesouthere: Vault 7....William Binney

At this point, the allegations are unproven. However, it is plausible that the NSA is scooping up everything.

Trump's claim, though, was the Obama was wiretapping his phone, which implies that Obama had access to Trump's private communications. Even if the NSA is collecting everything, that doesn't mean Obama had access to Trump's private communications.

If, in fact, the NSA is exceeding its authority, according to Binney, this dates to at least 2001, so it a problem with the intelligence community, not with the Obama Administration specifically (unless Obama was trolling the data for political advantage, which is doubtful). Furthermore, Trump is now uniquely positioned to either rein in the NSA, or to use the NSA for his own political and financial advantage. Instead, he makes unevidenced claims about his predecessor.

Meanwhile,

House intel chairman: No evidence of wiretapping claim

Um, no.

Gateway Pundit links to Doug Ross who links to Harvard which links to a private document titled "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical 'News' Sources". The list includes not just fake news, but sources the author says are satirical, unreliable, or with strong biases. "All of the contents in this document reflect the opinion of the author".

In other words, Gateway Pundit and Doug Ross conflate a list which includes satire and bias with 'fake news'.