Atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen explains in the interview that the current warming and climate change are nowhere near posing an existential threat to us.
Very interesting discussion. Such a lot to take in. Just reading Brian Fagan’s The Little Ice Age, and how the weather was a major driver of change in the ‘western world’ during this time - a harsh time. The book attests to there being a wide range of opinions on climate change, whether we were and are in the LIA still or not being just one of them - although, given that was published 25 years ago, I expect there has been some light shed on this since. Or not! I agree consensus does not assure the validity of scientific theory: evidence must underlie why one hypothesis has a stronger claim on our reason than another. I don’t expect ever to understand enough technically to even identify what evidence is significant in upholding a hypothesis on climate change, but I’ll keep trying.
Professor Lindzen is one of my "go to" experts in my quest to be up-to-date on climate change. His perspective on the corruption of environmental science in recent decades is so convincing. He does not mention Bjorn Lomborg whose independent logical approach to global warming is reassuring. I wish more climate fanatics would confront the truths espoused by these two men and, at the very least, understand that science is never settled and can easily be corrupted by biases in grant-giving.
AI is not a reliable source when it aggregates information that is missing its censored parts. We have to demand unbiased training for AI. With Grok there may be a chance.
Brilliant. I sincerely hope people are still able to consider Professor Lindzen words, and are not so indoctrinated that they cannot even listen.
Very interesting discussion. Such a lot to take in. Just reading Brian Fagan’s The Little Ice Age, and how the weather was a major driver of change in the ‘western world’ during this time - a harsh time. The book attests to there being a wide range of opinions on climate change, whether we were and are in the LIA still or not being just one of them - although, given that was published 25 years ago, I expect there has been some light shed on this since. Or not! I agree consensus does not assure the validity of scientific theory: evidence must underlie why one hypothesis has a stronger claim on our reason than another. I don’t expect ever to understand enough technically to even identify what evidence is significant in upholding a hypothesis on climate change, but I’ll keep trying.
Professor Lindzen is one of my "go to" experts in my quest to be up-to-date on climate change. His perspective on the corruption of environmental science in recent decades is so convincing. He does not mention Bjorn Lomborg whose independent logical approach to global warming is reassuring. I wish more climate fanatics would confront the truths espoused by these two men and, at the very least, understand that science is never settled and can easily be corrupted by biases in grant-giving.
A Titan of Logic
Grok3 says: https://x.com/i/grok/share/pqaaE9oYJA5ymf9N9P6s72Pcp . Will you kindly ask Prof. Lindzen to refute?
AI is not a reliable source when it aggregates information that is missing its censored parts. We have to demand unbiased training for AI. With Grok there may be a chance.