Intelligent Design

Richard Lindzen, Global Warming, and ID

Spread the love

Check out this lecture by Richard Lindzen:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

In Part 4 he notes:

The IPCC “consensus”: It is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions.

How was this arrived at?

What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid-seventies through the mid-nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and the forcing must have been due to man.

This argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being “demanded” by science.

He goes on to say that this constitutes arguing, “we can’t think of anything else,” (an argument from ignorance) and that ID has done something of this kind, only much more persuasively than the warmists. The point he makes is that if you’re going to argue that ID is invalid because it makes an argument from ignorance, the same challenge should be made concerning man-made global warming argumentation, only much more vigorously.

I’ll bet Lindzen is not very familiar with the ID literature. I’d be interested in his reaction after having read Signature In The Cell or many other ID publications that make the positive case for design.

12 Replies to “Richard Lindzen, Global Warming, and ID

  1. 1
    GilDodgen says:

    Concerning global warming, note that Lindzen talks about appeals to authority and consensus, dissenters being afraid to speak out for fear of being blacklisted and ridiculed, etc. It would be interesting to compile a list of his AGW challenges and compare them to their counterparts concerning ID challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy.

    I got a chuckle out of Lindzen’s final comment: “Whenever I’m asked if I am a climate skeptic, I always answer no. To the extent possible, I am a climate denier. That’s because skepticism assumes there is a good a priori case but you have doubts about it. There isn’t even a good a priori case. And so by allowing ourselves to be called skeptics, they have forced us to agree that they have something.”

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    AGC – Anthopogenic Global Cooling

    The signs are everywhere

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    If humans can cause global warming, why can’t humans cause global cooling?

  4. 4
    Joseph says:

    What has the warming been?

    Less than 1 degree F over the past 100 years.

    But it is supposed to ramp up because no one is afraid of less than 1 degree F in 100 years.

    So it has to ramp up- that is the “argument” anyway…

  5. 5
    Mark Frank says:

    #4

    Less than 1 degree F over the past 100 years.

    Actually it is 0.74 C = 1.3 F.

  6. 6
    Joseph says:

    #5

    Actually it is 0.74 C = 1.3 F

    Actually that 0.74C isn’t correct.

  7. 7
    Mark Frank says:

    #6

    I am basing my figure on the IPCC report http://www.grida.no/publicatio.....fig2-6.htm which is in turn based on the CRUSAT record. However, I understand that other records such as GISTEMP show a very similar rise.

    What is your figure based on?

  8. 8
    Joseph says:

    The IPCC?

    LoL!

    They are the problem.

    My figure is based on the adjustment- the adjustment required because the IPCC did not use all possible temp readings.

  9. 9
    Mark Frank says:

    Joseph #8

    My figure is based on the adjustment- the adjustment required because the IPCC did not use all possible temp readings.

    As I said the IPCC/HADCRUT (I am sorry – not sure why I typed CRUTSAT above) figure closely matches other sources such as GISTEMP. Perhaps you could point me to your adjusted figures?

  10. 10
    NZer says:

    Seems like the videos have been removed from YouTube. Is there another source?

  11. 11
    GilDodgen says:

    Here is the lecture all in one 52-minute chunk:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

  12. 12
    hrun0815 says:

    As I said the IPCC/HADCRUT (I am sorry – not sure why I typed CRUTSAT above) figure closely matches other sources such as GISTEMP. Perhaps you could point me to your adjusted figures?

    I’d be curious about that, too. Are there any other numbers?

Leave a Reply