Sentences with phrase «including lindzen»

AGW with «No Specific Quantification» says John Cook, will encompass all views, including Lindzen, Carter, Spencer, etc and Montford Watts, Nova, (Pile) Laframboise.

He consulted the «best» denialists he could find, worldwide — including Lindzen, Plimer and Bob Carter — and the nearest bunch of mainstream climate scientists he could find, who happened to be mainly on the staff of a NZ university, i.e. good people, I'm sure, but not world leaders.

Colleagues, including Lindzen in private, questioned Emanuel's findings, and Emanuel himself came to temper his conclusions.

With the stakes raised, the climate debate became more polarized and venomous, and scientists including Lindzen and Emanuel were tugged into the fray.

After my call, he labeled me another «hysterical left winger», brought in the subject of heterosexual aids and how he beat the «predictions» of scientists on this subject, then proceeded to name all the «scientists» that were skeptics (including Lindzen, Frederick Seitz, Tim Patterson, Svensmark, Willie Soon and others) along with their scientific «credentials».

What's left when you filter that out is a small group of outliers, including Lindzen, Spencer, etc., who continue to publish, reject the consensus, but have a weak track record when it comes to the arguments and hypotheses they've advanced.

There has also been a lot of talk about the dire scholarship from deniers, including Lindzen who is on the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF.

After my call, he labeled me another «hysterical left winger», brought in the subject of heterosexual aids and how he beat the «predictions» of scientists on this subject, then proceeded to name all the «scientists» that were skeptics (including Lindzen, Frederick Seitz, Tim Patterson, Svensmark, Willie Soon and others) along with their scientific «credentials».

Not exact matches

Members of the GWPF include MIT's Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist, the economist David Henderson, and Richard Tol, a professor of the economics of climate change at the Free University of Amsterdam.

Possibly this article is Milloy's source, and what's especially interesting about it is how very wrong so many skeptics (including Richard Lindzen and John Christy) can turn out be in just eleven months.

One group includes adamant nay - sayers like Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton, and another includes Richard Lindzen of MIT and Steven Koonin, an advocate of the «red team, blue team» approach to debating competing visions of how the world works.

Judy Curry's blog posted an item on a Richard Lindzen presentation that included the claim that aerosol forcing is adjusted to make climate projections match observed temperature trends.

On the other hand I like Dr Curries approach, which seem to have picked up a global trend in cyclones, but I wont be surprised if cyclone studies including hurricanes fall into Dr Lindzen's dolldrums (the only thing he constantly argues correctly is a diminishing equator to Pole temp difference slowing eveything down).

I find it hard to draw the same conclusion in looking at my coverage, which has long included the voices of researchers challenging the predominant line of thinking on climate science, among them Roger Pielke Sr., Richard Lindzen, who was quoted in the 2006 article you read, John Christy, Ivar Giaever (a Nobelist who rejects the science pointing to dangerous greenhouse warming) and others.

They challenge the longstanding view of Richard Lindzen and others that there are natural regulators built in to the tropical climate system that «let off steam» in a way; but they also challenge those using the specter of tropical warming — including the Amazon rain forest turning into a desert — as another reason to move swiftly to curb greenhouse gases.

Possibly this article is Milloy's source, and what's especially interesting about it is how very wrong so many skeptics (including Richard Lindzen and John Christy) can turn out be in just eleven months.

The climate - change debunkers include Richard S. Lindzen, 67, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who claims that human - caused warming is inconsequential, and Michael Crichton, 64, the novelist and moviemaker.

These include, among others, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), Dr. John R. Christy (UAH), Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH / NASA), and Dr. William M. Gray (CSU).

They do cite a study by Lindzen and Choi, which has shown, based on ERBE satellite observations, that the net impact of a doubling of CO2 including all feedbacks is likely to be significantly lower than the model - based estimates by Myhre for sensitivity without feedbacks.

Chris V. «In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen...).»

Other signatures include those of Claude Allègre, Jan Breslow, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Nir Shaviv, and Antonino Zichichi.

[12] The Guardian also suggested a number of reasons that Peabody Energy lost the case, including Richard Lindzen's own admission that the case hinged on ignoring the IPCC expert consensus, and instead listening to contrarian science: [13]

Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).

Richard Lindzen's contribution included testimony later rebutted by R. Gurney (also see CO2 lags temperature at Skeptical Science): [25]

In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen...).

The panel included notorious cimate sceptic Richard Lindzen, and yet, in spite of his contribution, the panels worrying conclusions about AGW and its impacts went well beyond those of the IPCC.

Other contrarian and denialist authors include Patrick Michaels, Bob Carter, Richard Lindzen, James Delingpole, Donna Laframboise, Nigel Lawson, Ian Plimer, Anthony Watts, William Kininmonth and Mark Steyn.

I guess Lindzen's papers did not include the search string «global climate change» or «global warming».

In a pretrial discovery motion, California and the environmental groups asked for: «All documents relating to both global warming and to any of the following individuals: S. Fred Singer, James Glassman, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels, Thomas Gale Moore, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Chris Homer [sic], Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Frederick Seitz, Willie Soon, and Steven Milloy, including but not limited to: a. All documents relating to any communications between you and these individuals, and b. All documents relating to your relationship (or the relationship of any automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturers) with any of them, including but not limited to payments directly or indirectly from you or any other automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturer to any of them.»

It's stunning that nothing Dick Lindzen has published since 1997 was included.

5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations / cross examination of climate scientists from both the «skeptical» (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the «warmist» sides?

They include Nigel Lawson, Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth, Mark Steyn, Donna Laframboise, Pat Michaels, Jennifer Marohasy, Andrew Bolt, Richard Lindzen, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, James Delingpole, Bob Carter, Ross McKitrick and Ian Plimer.

But this won't be an example — that Lindzen paper is an old 1994 publication, so it was included.

All DOCUMENTS relating to both GLOBAL WARMING and to any of the following individuals: S. Fred Singer, James Glassman, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels, Thomas Gale Moore, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Chris Homer [sic], Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Frederick Seitz, Willie Soon, and Steven Milloy, including but not limited to:

Other «scientists» whose signatures appear include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, Jan Breslow, Roger Cohen, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.

The «scientists» Inhofe mentioned included: Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, David Wojick, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Paul Reiter, David Legates, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Sietz, as well as the signatories of both the Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition.

William Happer spoke at a «climate summit» arranged by the Texas Public Policy Foundation shortly before the UN climate summit in Paris (COP21), along with other prominent skeptics including Richard Lindzen and Patrick Moore.

Oreskes» literature review inexplicably overlooked hundreds of articles by prominent global warming skeptics including John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, and Patrick Michaels.

Though Lindzen has often written of the aerosol anomaly (including IIRC in the WSJ) the temerity of an outsider like Nic Lewis calling the climate establishment to account, with more detail ready on BH and WUWT, is a particularly powerful thing.

The authors included Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who for years has expressed skepticism about some of the more dire predictions of other climate scientists about the significance of human - caused warming.

Lindzen's argument has also been rebutted several times, including by Coby Beck in 2006 and Stefan Rahmstorf in 2008.

Alex Epstein writes a letter published on the Center for Industrial Progress» website titled, «Don't Divest, Educate — An Open Letter to American Universities,» in which he and several other notable climate change deniers, including Peter Ferrara, J. Scott Armstrong, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, David Schnare, Richard Lindzen, and Matt Ridley, proclaim that they are «proud to stand in favor of fossil fuels.»

When so many different arguments support and no observations or plausible arguments speak against the understanding, it's natural that essentially every scientist of applicable specialization agrees that the theory of radiative energy transfer is correct including people like Lindzen and Spencer.

Epstein also hosts a monthly podcast titled «Power Hour» that features «leading energy thinkers» including climate change deniers like Richard Lindzen and Steve Milloy.

Grijalva's letter targets universities where noted skeptical scientists work, including MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen, Georgia Tech's Dr. Judith Curry, Colorado's Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and the University of Alabama's John Christy and Roy Spencer.

The scientists include Patrick Michaels, Christopher Essex, Kesten Green, Richard Lindzen, Jennifer Marohasy, Stewart Franks, John Abbot, J Scott Armstrong, Robert M Carter, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer and Willie Soon â $ «writing on flawed IPCC models, the role of the sun, geological history and natural variability.

Other «experts» who appeared on The Great Global Warming Swindle included Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer.

Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, two contrarian scientists who appeared for Peabody at hearings in Minnesota last month on the social cost of carbon, were also included in the bankruptcy filings.

The GWPF's «Academic Advisory Council» is made up of a number of noted climate skeptics including Christopher Essex, Matt Ridley, Paul Reiter, Nir Shaviv, Philip Stott, Richard Tol, Benny Peiser (director), Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, and many others.

Other authors of «The Stern Review: A Dual Critique» include the high profile climate skeptics Richard Lindzen, Ross McKitrick, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter.