New Scientific Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory

richard-lindzenA newly released scientific study published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has the potential of destroying one of the fundamental underpinnings of global warming theorists.  The study collected 15-years of long wave radiation measurements from a satellite orbiting the earth.  The study correlates the change in the earth’s surface temperature with the change in outgoing long wave radiation.  Lindzen’s study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases.  This is exactly the opposite result that is assumed to occur in the UN climate models.  The UN models predict that more radiation is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere as the temperature rises.  Lindzen’s findings blow a hole a mile-wide in the arguments used by global warming evangelists.

Read more about Lindzen’s study here.

47 Responses to New Scientific Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory

  1. Neil F. AGWD October 16, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Lindzen has been one of my heroes since I became aware that AGW was a lie. This is news, real news. Gee, I wonder how much media play this will get. Oh, wait, I’m sorry there’s a much more important story going on right now about how the press thought there was a kid in a baloon shaped like a flying saucer, but it turns out he was hiding in a box.
    Who cares that what the media and Al Gore, James Hansen, and the IPCC was saying is really a bunch of crap, and Dr. Lindzen’s study proves it?
    Did you heaar that Micheal Jackson died?

    • cd113 October 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

      Wow. Thank you. Someone had to say it. Whereas most good, hard working / thinking minds would assume “hot air baloon”, the editorials fail to cover that in their headlines (thesis, anyone?) and instead, ARE DIEING FOR YOUR CLICK!! . . . Lame.

      Gotta love how the media tends to cater to the dumb, fat and right-handed. And rich. Come on, when’s the last time you obtained good knowledge for free? 😉 Also, lame.

      God, wouldn’t it be great if this shattered through the icebergs of propaganda and caused the elites running our lives to, I dunno, start putting funds toward truthful purposes and results? Or would that be asking for too much “Change” . . .

  2. paul wenum October 16, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    Neil, I agree. Lindzen and Roy Spencer is what got my curiousity up. To busy working believing being “green” was an excellent idea. We should always be a steward of our environment. I’m a hunter and fisherman and I like clean air and water. That said, Lindzen, Hanson et al, made me see the “other side” never reported by the media. Since my discovery of what I perceive as the Truth, I’m an admirer as well.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 16, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

      You know, people like our friend Rob think that we want to destroy the environment, that’s a good point you bring up there. Of course we need to be good stewards for the environment. Rob thinks we want to poison the atmosphere and oceans, and kill everything, and that is how the environmentalists frame us. But it is so untrue. This is the kind of mindset that we are dealing with though.
      Look at what happened to Rush Limbaugh with his attempt to be a partner in buying a football team. I listen to Rush everyday, and what they say that he’s said, he’s never said. Things were just made up out of whole cloth. Conservatives in general are painted as hate filled racist-biggot-homophobes and it is so untrue. Just like we are painted to be anti-Earth, and anti-environment. I am so sick of it.

      • Waffle October 17, 2009 at 1:09 am #

        And liberals in general are painted as communist, AGW types. Please, give me a break.

        • Neil F. AGWD October 17, 2009 at 7:43 am #

          You know, you’re absolutely right about that. The thing is…. painting Liberals as communist AGW types is fairly accurate, where painting Conservatives as hate filled racist-biggot-homophobe-nazis is just an outright lie. It’s not anywhere near the truth.

          • TJ October 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

            Neil, you are accurate my friend. Most liberals I meet just aren’t that in to FACTS and EVIDENCE and get all flustered when you challenge them to a true, non-ideological debate.

            Then, they are forced to trot out the old “racist, bigoted, science-hater” and quote bogus institutions such as “Science in the Public Interest” and other phony science to try and prove their points.

            Viva Hardyville and long live logical libertarianism.


        • James October 29, 2009 at 8:06 am #

          Liberals ARE communists, Marxists and Maoists. Show me a liberal that doesn’t believe global warming aka climate change is caused by humans. Just one! You see, if you understand liberals aka “progressives” or do any research at all you will see the communism and liberal thinking are one in the same. More government control.

  3. paul wenum October 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    Half my friends are “liberal” Demacrats . Do they believe in “global Warming”, NOT ALL! When we talk and discuss the issue it is always “Natural climate change is normal, not man made” Of course, we are all out in the woods or on the river, lakes etc. not sitting in a lounge chair looking at a skyscraper having a latte! Yes, they have read both sides. It is just that their political leaning are different and probably always will be, I hope not. Don’t put politics into something that puts us at odds with the facts. Libs, Centrists, Right Wingers should all look at the facts, if ever made know by the mainstream media, and come to their own conclusions as I, as well as my friends have, left, center or right. That, to me is the true American way. Think about it.

  4. Mudgett October 18, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Richard Lindzen may have just saved Western civilization.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 24, 2009 at 7:18 am #

      Yeah, If anyone hears about it. How many mainstream media reports about this? I bet the number is hovering somwhere around zero.

      • JLP October 29, 2009 at 8:06 am #

        This is so true. You never hear about the stuff (scientic or otherwise) that is the truth. Its all about the people with money. You never hear of stuff from the little guy or the unknown. Sad world we live in. Nice to know it may be around longer than expected.

  5. Paul Wenum October 18, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    Mudgett, I hope you are right. Add Roy Spencer as well. Please vote in 2010!

  6. Christopher Booth October 19, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Global warming is like gravity. Whether you believe in it or not it still works. We each live for only a blink of an eye in the time frame of existence of the Earth, and of the universe. While it is far easier to dig up fossils and create a record of the past, we have long ago passed the level of activity that can not affect the Earth. As stewards of the planet, it is our responsibility to set the thermostat to an appropriate level for our best well being. Venus is too hot, and Mars too cold. Earth in the age of the dinosaurs was fine for the dinosaurs, but way too hot for humans. How do 6 billion people make the decision what temperature is right for the Earth? It simply is not appropriate to just let it swing freely as it has in the past. Who among you wants to go through another ice age, or have New York be any hotter? No one has yet synthesized the positive feedbacks that brought us both out of and into ice ages, but the Earth has only been in this oscillatory phase for a small portion of its history, although when you go back more than a billion years the resolution becomes less defined. It is unlikely that the Earth will ever return to another ice age, but it is going to require first a decision on where to set the thermostat, and second, some careful control engineering to dampen the oscillation and maintain an appropriate temperature. My vote is for 0.6 to 0.7 degrees C below year 2000 temperatures, roughly where it was in 1900, and leaving it there for a billion years.

    We no longer live on a planet that controls our behavior, we live on a planet that we control by our behavior.

    • Soberfish October 19, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

      Christopher Boothe suggests that “It simply is not appropriate to just let it (earth’s temperature) swing freely as it has in the past.” He then appeals to us, asking the question “Who among you wants to go through another ice age?”

      You can’t reason with people who think like this.

    • Bill Halligan October 20, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

      “The age of the dinosaurs was…way too hot for humans” Why? SUVs? Guess not. Too much CO2? Probably not? And what caused the Little Ice Age to end? Not the industrial revolution. It had already happened. If you think we control the planet’s temperature, as you certainly imply, you give us humans far too much credit as well as blame. Do a little scientific investigation into solar aned cosmic radiation and the effect on atmospheric water droplets.

    • Yank October 21, 2009 at 8:27 am #

      Dampen the oscillation?! How exactly are we going to control the wobble of the earth’s axis? How are we going to control sun cycles? How are we going to control El Nino’s? There will be no oscillation dampening without ways to control those inputs.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 24, 2009 at 7:22 am #

      What?!?!?! I’m sorry, are you being sarchastic? I hope so because what your saying is completely ridiculous, and impossible.

    • James October 29, 2009 at 7:24 am #

      Very eloquently stated, but as ignorant as a 3 year old. For anyone to think that humans can alter the climate of a planet is not just ridiculous but very arrogant! The facts speak for themselves. Where did you get your data….An Inconvenient Truth? A decision on where to set the thermostat…….? What planet are you from?

  7. Rob N. Hood October 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    There you go again Paul- gee why can’t everyone be reasonable and see the world the way I do… then it would all be peachy, blah blah blah. Oh and I love it when conservatives say they love nature too (espcially when they add that they hunt and fish- but that’s another can of worms as they say!). But guess what Paul, clean water doesn’t just happen now, we the people who help make it dirty also need to help and make it clean again. And also guess what, that takes money AND regulations- it just doesn’t happen by magic, or for free, unless of course you really allowed mother nature the time and space she needs to do it naturally, which of course we don’t have the time or the patience for.

    • Yank October 21, 2009 at 8:14 am #

      Environmentalists certainly do believe in wildlife management. That is what hunters and fishermen do. We manage wildlife to protect the environment. So, no, there is not another can of worms here unless you plan on going fishing. We already have legislation that has made water and air cleaner. The article is about the inaccuracy of the predictions made by AWG theorists – not pollution.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 24, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

      There you go again making another generalization. Would you be surprised to learn that I do not hunt, or fish? Although I do not have a problem with people who partake in those activities. I don’t like to kill things for fun. Most hunters eat what they kill, and a lot of fishers eat what they catch or they practice catch and release. And how much would you bet that there are more than a few Liberals who hunt and fish? It’s a tradition.
      And another thing, if your ancestors did not hunt and or fish, you would never have existed because before it was a sport, or leisure activity, it was called SURVIVAL!!!! Duh!!!!!! And people would not have ventured far from the equater if they hadn’t used animal hides for clothing. People have done these things since before we were homosapiens. Pre-human species figured out how to kill large game, and use it’s meat, fat, and hides for survival. It’s part of what made us. If we hadn’t we may never have even existed, but I guess that would be fine with you, huh?
      And now a generalization of my own. You eco-liberals have no concept of the past, you have no idea how we got to the point that we are. We are animals and have gotten here by surviving.
      And you know what? I do love nature. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) created the National Parks system. Richard Nixon (Republican) Created the EPA.
      You don’t know what your talking about.

    • James October 29, 2009 at 8:00 am #

      Clean water DOES just happen. At least where I live. Water, at its origin requires no added minerals or chemicals to make it drinkable or useable to water our farms. Why do liberals think more control is better? Guess that’s why they elected a Marxist into the White House and a socialist as Prime Minister. People like this should practice what they preach… cars, no electricity…..and certainly don’t eat any meat! The facts about the earth’s climate have been exposed and the Al Gore’s of the world have been proven wrong. The name Rob N Hood speaks for itself. Take from the rich and give to the lazy. I have a better idea…get off of your lazy ass, get a job or start a business and stop expecting other people to pay your way. Get the government out of our lives and return to the values of the Constitution of the United States of America. You live by regualtions and I’ll live by the freedom endowed by the founding fathers.

      “The problem with socialism is eventualy you run out of other people’s money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. ron from Texas October 19, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    Rob N Hood. You’ve made a simple error. Confusing CO2 with actual water pollution. Not surprisingly, really, since your statement lacked anything in the way of science. Anyway, let me share something I learned in 8th grade science. Although, I must admit that when I was in 8th grade, they taught science in science class, not politics. Anyway, there’s a process called photosynthesis that you may not have heard about it. Get this – plants absorb sunlight and water and CO2 and put out oxygen and sugar. And, especially in winter, you may or may not have noticed that leaves change color and fall of the trees and parts of trees fall off. And CO2 is released in this process, as well as other decaying vegetation releasing CO2. In fact, plants release about 2 to 3 times the CO2 that Man does. The ocean puts out 100 gigatons to 125 gigatons of CO2. Man’s is calculated at 5 gigatons. Just the variation in the ocean’s out put is 5 times that of Man’s. Man’s output is about 3 % of the total CO2 load. And CO2 makes up .038 % of the Earth’s atmosphere (you can fact check that anywhere.) So, Man’s output is 3% of .038 % of the atmosphere, or .001 of the total atmosphere and you’re going to tell me that .001 of the atmophere is going to warm the planet 6 C?

    By the way, I hate to break it to you but a gas does not warm anything. All it can do is absorb and re emit. It’s why your air conditioner works. But it doesn’t heat anything. Another little tidbit of science. A gas does not have the conscious ability to decide which direction it radiates toward. This may hurt some feelings but a gas, even CO2, does not have the ability to only re-emit infrared toward the surface of the Earth. It will re-emit in any direction.

    The sun warms the oceans. The oceans release more CO2, that’s CO2 follows temperature rise and not the other way around. This is due to Henry’s Law. Of course, that’s just science and not computer games in Geneva.

    I dare you to fact check any of this.

    • Dorothy October 20, 2009 at 11:55 am #

      I’m so glad you are giving me facts, a little emotion too, but we’re all frustrated by the lack of science in this issue. I’d like to use your comments to send to some young friends who love this planet, but unfortuately are all emotion and no facts.

      • Chic Bowdrie October 20, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

        Dorothy, I agree with you about the emotion and applaud you for seeking the facts. However, climate change is both scientifically and politically complicated. The data itself is controversial, let alone its interpretation. I am trying to educate myself by reading recent books on both sides of the issue. As a skeptic, I found the following helpful: Meltdown (P. Michaels, 2004), Unstoppable Global Warming (Singer and Avery, 2007), Chilling Stars (Svensmark and Calder, 2007), Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future (Pilkey, 2007), Cool it! The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Bjorn Lomborg, 2007) ), Climate Confusion (Roy Spencer, 2008), and Climate of Extremes (Michaels and Balling, 2009). Global warming books are too numerous to mention, but your local library has them. I like to follow the comments here and elsewhere, because you get the debate in almost real time.

    • reason and logic in GA October 20, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

      Ron, you said it best! THE SUN WARMS THE OCEANS! I’d love to hear just how much mankind can save their scrawny little hind-ends when the sun went out 7.5 minutes ago…and there are 30 seconds to find the flashlights, and survival gear, and matches and, well, you know the truth. The record cold of October 2009 has shattered some records going back over 100 years, and people still think they affect the Big Blue Marble to any great degree. The best analogy of how much of an impression we really leave was overheard by manager “educating” a young employee; the mgr. said, “go in the bathroom and run a sink full of water, put your hand in, then remove your hand and tell me just how much of an impression you’ve left.” Crystal clear and concise! Climate Change is paired up with “hopen-change”…all any of us will have left in our pockets is change to rub together in this greatest scam every pulled on mankind. It’s a tax of enormous proportions designed to rip the Western world apart and benefit a few elitists who will sit offshore and watch the world implode. The sovereignty of the United States of America will fall to the UN (useless nuts) with the zerobama’s effort to impose all three: The Millennium Development Goals, the Global Poverty Act, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “feral” gov’t of the US and the thugocracy of the UN couldn’t operate a paper airplane, and they’ve convinced hundreds of millions that they can fix everything. Before I get too old, I just want to kick some liberal ass back to the hell it crawled out of.

      • truth lover in CO October 22, 2009 at 10:01 am #

        Amen! Especially on your last three sentences!

    • ONTIME October 22, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

      Well stated and very much in line with the actual way applied sciece is put to use. You probably made a lot of enemies with that bit of science application but it’s time for the truth to be repeated to the dunderheads so that some day they too will achieve some kind of intelligence….good work.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 24, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

      I like it!!!!
      Don’t hold your breath Ron. Rob N’ Hood aint’ about fact checking. He’s all about hit n’ run

  9. Paul Wenum October 19, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    Thank you Ron, I assume you fish?? I was waiting for Robbie Boy’s comments! Keep it up Ron. We need people like you!!!!!

  10. Rob N. Hood October 20, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    Weird: Ron- I never made any such claim that you then had to go into such detail show-casing your intellectual talents about… You were either reading (a lot) into my simple and brief statement, or you are on some kind of chemical that changes reality. Good luck with that. but I guess Pauly Boy likes you so that’s all that counts.

  11. Nosmo179 October 21, 2009 at 6:49 am #

    I am confused by the conclusion in the abstract. The last few sentences, “Lindzen’s study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases. This is exactly the opposite result that is assumed to occur in the UN climate models. The UN models predict that more radiation is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere as the temperature rises.” do not support the last sentence,”Lindzen’s findings blow a hole a mile-wide in the arguments used by global warming evangelists.”

    I say this because this is such a small part of the hole and are still only theories being studied to find out why we are warming. So, if the UN theory is proven false in no way lead to disproving the our earth is warming up. In some ways this finding supports those who believe our warming is more a man made change this time around and not from solar radiation, etc.

    What it might do is to force the UN, et al, to recalculate the rate of change since less outer space radiation is getting into our environment. Should be a good thing no matter who is right.

  12. Rob N. Hood October 22, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    Dorothy, I’m very curious to know why you automatically assume Ron from Texas is “giving you facts.” Do you know anything about him? Did you just like what he said? It appeared to me anyway to be slightly gibberish, and he was responding to something I didn’t even say- meaning he misunderstood a very simple statement I made which makes me wonder about his cognitive abilities. I just find that curious because it happens on this site A LOT.

    • Neil F. AGWD October 24, 2009 at 6:19 pm #

      How do you know they are not facts? Did you check them? I bet you didn’t. Because he actually is far closer to the facts than you will ever be. Besides, you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the a**!!!!!

  13. Paul Wenum October 22, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Robbie Boy, and “Your facts” are correct?? Give me a break! Send me a signed statement from Albert Gore, or would it be Soros? Take your pick, I’d love to read them. Later.

  14. Rob N. Hood October 23, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Good one Pauly Boy… not.

  15. Paul Wenum October 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    I cannot read them? Soros and Gore holding them close to their vest? Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz!

  16. Not Hot Here October 24, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Of course, this study makes complete sense. The Third law of thermodynamics CLEARLY STATES “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAP HEAT”. This is old new’s, it’s been in all the textbooks for a couple of hundred years. It is only possible (by natural or MAN MADE means) to SLOW the flow of heat from warm locations to cold locations. In fact the bigger the temperature difference between locations, THE FASTER IS THE FLOW of HEAT!!! So the “greenhouse gases” are in fact “THERMAL INSULATING GASES” !!! As these gases heat up (by a trivial amount) the thermal energy absorbed in these “greenhouse gases” flows FASTER to the cold vacuum of space. And then the heat “trapped“ in the atmosphere of the earth flows out to space and waits to be “refilled” by the SUN. It’s the Sun Stupid!!!

    This is all totally explained by the THIRD laws of thermodynamics, which is based on the laws of PHYSICS.


  17. paul wenum October 25, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    Agree. It is NATURAL. Can we control it? Not!

  18. Rob N. Hood October 26, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    Fascism was natural and a big problem back in the 40’s and we controlled it, for awhile, anyway. Why such a defeatist attitude there Pauly Boy? No faith in American ingenuity?

  19. Pappadave October 26, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    American ingenuity would be MUCH better directed towards finding a way to educate the morons who believe this anthropogenic global warming nonsense, Rob. Noting that, for the last 10 years, “the globe” has been actually cooling, these idiots have bought into “climate change” instead..hook, line and sinker! As brother Bugs would say, “What a bunch of maroons!”

  20. Paul Wenum October 27, 2009 at 8:54 pm #


    Agree. Education is the answer. Always has been and always will. Excellent school system we have isn’t it?

  21. Rob N. Hood November 1, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Then why do Repubs refuse to spend adequate money for it? Hypocrites.

  22. paul wenum November 6, 2009 at 1:05 am #

    Nice word, “Repubs.” you like that word don’t you. Must tell me children to put into their vocabulary. Check Minnesota in what is spent by you and I from k-12! You can live a year on it Boy!

  23. toyotawhizguy March 7, 2010 at 10:26 am #

    @Christopher Booth says:
    October 19, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    “We no longer live on a planet that controls our behavior, we live on a planet that we control by our behavior.”


  1. Ironic Surrealism v3.0 » Video: Lord Monckton Speaks –Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen - October 20, 2009

    […] New Scientific Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory […]

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.