re: #417 Naso Tang

If this link has been posted I didn’t see it, but I am sure we will hear about it in the near future. The writer is a professor at MIT. Meteorology no less.

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

It is an informative article in many regards, and few would disagree with the title. However it is disconcerting that what we are led to believe are major issues, is glossed over as trivial by the writer. For example, he generally agrees that a 2 degree temperature rise due to AGW is within a reasonable range, but then he says it is no big deal. My understanding is that it is indeed a big deal when it comes to the behavior of glaciers, or ocean ice.

He says that seasonally open water at the north pole is no big deal, but my understanding is that there has been no “north west” sea passage open since the days of Columbus, but there might be next year. That seems rather significant to me.

He glosses over the significance of “disaster” forecasting with the comment that weather always produces disaster in some locations. It is true that any individual such disaster cannot automatically be blamed on AGW, but he totally ignores the one global disaster that is conceivable; namely the rise of sea levels and the fact that the majority of humans live in areas barely above high tide.

An article that calls for questions to the author, and I suspect he will get them in spades.

Everybody here knows Lindzen. He’s been discredited many times and after which he moves on to a new hypothesis as to why AGW is false.