Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

The global freeze scenario was from a long time ago. :)
But uncertainty does increase with time.

there is uncertainty, in the long run, as to how the climate will change. Some projections have contemplated a global freeze

That's not really true, though you would be forgiven for believing it because of the usually terrible reporting of climate science in the press.

Kaija yes, that's right, Lindzen thinks that the climate's sensitivity (ie the warming effect of a doubling of CO2) is relatively low because of negative feedback. This is not a mainstream position, but it's not one that requires a rejection of basic physics either. I suspect this point is going to lost on certain posters though.

yes he WAS saying that climate scientists were academically and intellectually inferior to astrophysicists

Were his middle names Sheldon Cooper?

Yes, Kaija.

there is uncertainty, in the long run, as to how the climate will change. Some projections have contemplated a global freeze, but I don't know if that is still a possibility or the time frame.

However, it does look like for the next decade, the likelihood is of increased temperature and, importantly, more extreme weather.

Reading Lindzen's Wikipedia page, it looks as though he doesn't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that levels are increasing due to human activities, but he believes that as the climate warms, decreasing tropical cirrus clouds will result in cooling so counteracting the effects.

This may or may not be relevant:

"The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[71]"

An astrophysicist and an atmospheric or planetary scientist are rather different, and indeed difficult to confuse unless you have zero knowledge of physics and earth sciences.

Lindzen is indeed a reasonably serious climate scientist, whose main differences with his more mainstream colleagues would be, I think, in the area of climate sensitivity. I seriously doubt that any practising climate scientist disputes the warming effect of CO2 or the fact that the earth has warmed in the last century.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.

When i said astrophysicist above, i was referring to this guy, not an astrophysicist.

How is atmospheric physics 'rather unrelated' to climate change?

The former head of research and development at the large chemicals company I work for was a denier. But he'd have had a coronary if a climate science had dared suggest he might be wrong about the basic science of catalysis.

Basically - science is specialised. Scientists specialised in one branch of physics are unlikely to have a good grasp of the science in another, rather unrelated branch, particularly one like climate science that tends to cross disciplines (for eg much of the research on paleoclimate has been done by people with a biochemistry or geoscience background).

Let's not forget consensus does not truth make. At least we can all agree on that.

(see what i did there

Well he was asked about it and he went on to clarify - yes he WAS saying that climate scientists were academically and intellectually inferior to astrophysicists

That's like saying biologists aren't real scientists.

Even physicists can't agree on a theory of everything, or on their particle/string theories. Compared to them, climate science is a doddle and a real consensus.

You won't find climate scientists on the list. One astrophysicist says it's what people do when they can't do the physics.

Understanding is not knowing, it's how you interpret it.
Religion is mostly about interpretation. Funnily enough, it changes data to fit into the interpretation.
Science is mostly about knowledge. It changes interpretation to fit with the data.

There are different forms of knowledge to describe the world. Religion is one

It's still a way of saying something about the world (knowing). There are many different ways to know (understand) the world. Faith, superstition, religion, introspection, science - all ways of knowing. They are valued, evaluated, upheld or rejected according to different criteria but they still give us knowledge about the world (scientific knowledge, religious knowledge...).

It's not hard to find the name of scientists that dispute Global Warming. They're on Wikipedia. :)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

Anyway, the ones on the list disagree with the projections, not with the past data to this date, which does show an increase (it's hard to dispute that, unless you really are blinkered).

Not many climate scientists on that list, but then again, the theory of Continental Drift also had some trouble establishing itself.
I know, from experience, how hard it is to establish a theory, even with hard data, and how hard thinking some old professors are.

You are though not the.

Just give us the names WW!!!

Well you are the. You said you understood a circular argument.

On the subject of climate change, there are a small number of practising climate scientists who are partly sceptical of manmade climate change - it's not that they don't believe in it (the basic physics was established by Arrhenius over a century ago) but they dispute how fast it's happening. A good example of this would be Dr Roy Spencer whose temperature series derived from satellite data is much quoted by deniers. The problem for these people is that reality has caught up with them over the last year.

No, WinchesterWoman, no I am not.

Tell us the names of the scientists you are thinking of and we can see how they've been treated by the rest of the scientific community. You never know, I might have a Damascene conversion to Climate Change denial. That would make me very happy as it happens.

The Luther King's niece thing is a classic Argument from Authority fallacy, isn't it?

As will the Professors who are going to be trotted out to deny Climate Change. Professors of Linguistics, Sociology, Psychology...............

"That is just the Establishment's media, having lost control of the people"

I take it you've seen the Sun, the Express and the Mail? You think they are anti-establishment?