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

[claig]

Oct 20th 2 am UK time.

Last chance for the Establishment to stop the Trump surge in the polls.
World leaders will be watching, Establishments will be tuning in on the edge of their seats in trepidation.

People will be laughing, diving into the popcorn and knocking back the alcohol.

Round 3. Rock'n'roll.

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.

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]"

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.

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

Were his middle names Sheldon Cooper?

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.

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.

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

Realisation is not dawning in the media. The media has gone from denial, to trying to change the narrative, to believing it has had some measure of success in doing so.

Kaija that's a fruitless task - looking at agw proponents who have a financial dog in the fight would just be a tit for tat game.

Yeah I know I mistyped misto. I said earlier definitely the atmos type and possibly the astro type.

I think you can still watch his evidence session to a lords committee? I think it was the Lord's. Sorry not helpful.

Peabody Energy has been pretty busy with co-opting scientists for its PR.

"Peabody has been an important actor in organized climate change denial. Until 2015, Peabody has been claiming that global warming isn't a threat and emitting carbon dioxide is beneficial instead of being dangerous. The company also funded at least two dozens of climate change denial organizations and front groups such as the George C. Marshall Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Changeas well as scientists being famous for their contrarian opinions, among them Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer.[67] Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy, commented on the sheer scale of Peabody's funding activities: "We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement."[67][62]Peabody plans to continue opposition the Clean Power Plan during its bankruptcy.[68]"

"In Newsweek's 2012 Green Rankings—comparisons of the environmental footprint, management, and transparency of the largest public companies in America—Peabody Energy was ranked 493rd out of 500 in all industries and 29th out of 31 in the energy industry. The company received the worst possible Environmental Impact score.[57]"

Anyway.

I watched some of this 3rd debate.

Have tried to keep an open mind but I'm afraid Trump has failed.

ALL his responses are about making it all her fault - she's to blame - it's all because of Her - she's bad - she did it - it was her ...

He's too juvenile to be president.

Oh god kaija you know the green science industry is awash with cash

And of course you aren't going to earn much as a climate scientist if you speak out

I think you'll need to be a little more specific than that WinchedterWoman

yes i guess I would to convince you
never mind - there's no way i'm going to copy and paste loads of links and all that, i just don't have it in me tonight

your google energy has defeated me

The climate science stable door is open and the horse long gone WW. Just go and look at the last 12 months of global temperature data (pause in warming? What pause?).

I'd save your tinfoil for something else.

Mistigirl - there is so much evidence either way. Why are you accepting one set of evidence over another (genuine question)?

I am a reputable non-climate-change physicist. I happen to believe in anthropomorphic climate change. For me the clincher is actually the rainfall data that shows a 7 day cyclic pattern in rainfall. There isn't anything that operates in nature on a 7 day cycle...that would be us humans doing that. If we can make it rain we can certainly heat the planet.

I also did a summer internship in an atmospheric physics department and can confirm that on a sample of people I know, atmospheric physicists aren't quite as smart as astrophysicists...but its close.

Fourmummy because there is not "so much evidence either way". All the evidence is in one direction only; the only question is "how high will temperatures go and how fast?" (There is some legitimate debate about this. Go and read some of the science; the website realclimate.org would be a good place to start if you already have some maths/science background).

Genuine question for you: why are you prepared to argue about a scientific subject about which you plainly know almost nothing?

Mistigirl - because I am interested in the process of knowledge generation.

I'm interested in how we sift through evidence and make decisions about what accept as valid. It's not threatening - just interesting (it could be any topic. I'm interested in the process). For example,

"Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled “I resign from APS” to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.” Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008.

he said it is just like Brexit where the Establishment called the people racist and where those who had never voted before turned out to vote to leave the European Union.

Anyone who says that is really revealing the depths of their ignorance. The US election can't be "just like Brexit" because it's an electoral college system. Had Brexit been run on that basis, the Remain side would have won because the big cities would have had more electoral college electors.

Looks like Ivar Giaever is working for the Heartland Institute, who helped Philip Morris deny smoking risks and have been substantially funded by Exxon

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheHeartlandd_Institute

There's a bit of a theme here.