Elevator Speech

In business communications training, we were taught to think about the “elevator version” of the point we were trying to make.  If we were on an elevator alone with the CEO and had 30-seconds to make our pitch, what would we say.

Richard Lindzen, in his presentation at the Heartland Conference, has the best short (100-ish word) summary of the core of many skeptics’ concerns with catastrophic AGW theory that I have seen for a while:

Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of these facts and of their implications.

  1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.
  2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.

These concerns form the core of my most recent video.

  • Waldzen

    Yup. 100-ish word summary – good, thorough science there. Heartland Conference – objective source with rational, objective, non-politicized people (and this is not a blog about politics, remember Wally, and its the “alarmists” who are politicizing the science). Lindzen – a trustworthy scientist.

    Batting a 1,000 here boys.

  • Jack

    Thanks to this site and especially Dr. Lindzen — one of the greatest minds in climate science to stomp CAGW BS and put science back where it belongs and gives science a good name once again.

  • Jack

    All the alarmists can do now is whine! Aren’t we tired of whining, yet? Isn’t whine for children? When are the alarmists going to grow up? How long are they going to keep their head in the sand? How long are they going to keep saying the earth is flat? These flat earthers need to realize CO2 in any time scale has always been lagging temperature.

    One thing is certain, you can’t suppress truth forever, no matter how many billions of wasted taxpayer dollars spent to suppress it.

    We won, they lost, get a life.

  • Waldack

    ****”We won, they lost”

    Can we say ‘tribal mentality’ anyone?

    And, Jack, you might step out of the deniosphere every once in a while before doing your victory dance.

  • Based on his last slide, and based on the near-religious hysteria and faith necessary to believe in AGW with no room for doubt, I suggest that all former “skeptics” re-label themselves “global warming agnostics”. If we’re going to engage with religious fanatics, let’s do so using quasi-religious terminology.

  • I like to term myself a (Hidden) Global Warming Heretic, due to the religious nature of the subject. Without faith, it is nothing, to paraphrase some entity or other.

    Similarly, I like to label AGW believers as Natural Climate Change Deniers. I mean, it’s not as if you could ever truly tease a 0.7C change in 100 years (that is 0.007C per year) out of any REAL temperature data. Looking at a scattergraph, which is far more realistic than any ‘smoothed’ graph, is very revealing. The ‘signal’ is made completely irrelevant by the noise of variation.

    And don’t get me started on the actual *meaning* of an average temperature. To do that, you have to decide what average means (mean, median, mode, etc) and then what you measure and how often, and where. How does it relate to sea level. How does it relate to humidity. That is the kicker really, as elevation does not change often (although these weather stations do jump around!), but humidity changes all the time. And with that change comes an associated change of heat capacity, and a massive one at that. And we can ignore that? I don’t think so!

    So we are determining that in all this massively complex interplay of dynamic systems that we are only just becoming to understand a bit, one individual output that cannot even be properly defined (‘average’ termperature) is almost entirely controlled by a 0.01% by volume addition of a trace gas in the air, that we still have not proven does very much more than what it is doing without that addition. Sounds like Homeopathy to me!

    Sorry, rant over….

    This too is tagged by the ‘Climate Change sceptic blog alerts’ Good luck!

  • Mike M.

    Hey Waldack, here’s what you see when in Reality Land…

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

    Only 33% of voters believe Man is responsible for global warming. Public belief in AGW has been falling for some time thanks to a combination of bad science and repellent behavior on the part of literally everyone in the anthropogenic camp, from the egomaniacal “climate scientists” to the hate-filled orcs of Climate Progress. What remains of your political support will be swept away this fall. Two years from now they won’t even take your calls on Coast-to-Coast AM. And don’t get your hopes up for this Enron-style “energy” bill now moldering in congress. Not only is it not going anywhere, it is your last stab at “saving the world.”

    Is Jack a little early with his victory dance? Yeah, but when you are up by 35 with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter…

  • Waldalorian

    Well Mike, there were a lot of numbers there…

    ****”A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem”

    ****”29% who consider it very serious”

    ****”43% now say global warming is not serious, including 21% who say it is not at all serious”

    And so on. So your 33% there should be taken in context, amigo.

    And I might suggest a different reason for the still comparatively small decline in the numbers: the deception of the deniospehre. CS is a prime example. Except now the “alarmists” are fighting back and in the same milieu and with the same media – which, predictably, the deniosphere feels victimized by (see Mr. Meyer’s post “Irony”).

    For my own part, I would fall into the category of those who would let the scientists do their work without all the noise from the gullible and those whose political leanings dictate their take on the subject. But that’s just me.

  • Robert E. Phelan

    Congratulations! You’ve been targeted by Climate Change sceptic blog alerts and I’m willing to bet that Wald* is a tool who hasn’t even got the brains to ask to be paid by Big Environment. There’s no tool like a willing tool.

  • netdr

    Where’s waldo ?