Lindzen: “Before World War II peer review was very rare and if I have students read papers from the 19th century or the early 20th century they’re quite surprised to read them why because they’re informal their Communications they’re not assertions of Truth they are looking for truth uh and um you know after the war for a variety of reasons peer review entered largely because there was too much demand for publication may even have been a shortage of paper but for instance the quarterly Journal of the royal Meteorological Society in the UK had a wonderful statement of what the reviewer was supposed to do and it said you can only reject a paper for two reasons one is an overt mathematical error or lack of originality the paper then would be discussed at the monthly meeting and the discussion would be included with the paper there is no essential thought that peer review I mean peer review the public has been made to think that this is the certification of the paper that it is somehow proven right now it’s fact, and it’s nothing of the sort.”
What Does the Science Say? | Dr. Richard Lindzen | Jordan Peterson Podcast
Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Richard Lindzen dive into the facts of climate change, the models used to predict it, the dismal state of academia, and the politicized world of “professional” science.
Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist. He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference. He has attained multiple degrees from Harvard University, and won multiple awards in his field of study such as the Jule Charney award for “highly significant research in the atmospheric sciences”. Between 1983 and 2013, he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT where he earned emeritus status in July of 2013.
Dr. Peterson’s extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSXh
For Dr. Richard Lindzen:
MIT Page: https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/rlindzen
- Chapters –
(0:00) Coming Up
(1:19) Intro
(4:40) Why you should listen to Dr. Lindzen
(13:00) How Ivy league hirings work
(16:00) Harvard or MIT?
(18:00) Emphasis on racism in the sciences
(19:22) Administrators outnumber faculty and students
(20:00) Wasting time on a broken grant system
(22:00) There is no money for questioning mainstream science
(24:00) 1800’s science papers shock students
(25:30) Scientific journals are not endorsements of the science they publish
(27:40) 1970’s, they notice an increase in Co2
(30:10) Classism and religious warping
(33:40) Impoverishing ourselves for no reason
(38:00) Objections to the narrative
(40:00) Coriolis effect
(45:48) Jordan plays devils advocate
(50:05) Politicians base their policy on scientific summaries written by politicians
(53:20) Bjørn Lomborg: even if they’re right, it’s not a big deal
(54:22) Tipping points, how they actually work
(57:00) Averaging anomalies
(1:03:00) Climate threat still five thousand years away
(1:08:00) Computer models, limitations and benefits
(1:12:13) Fluid dynamics
(1:14:45) Models on top of models predicting nothing
(1:17:45) Where scientists actually agree
(1:21:10) Money corrupts, “Climate Scientist” did not exist in the 90’s
(1:25:10) Speaking for your values without asking you what they are
(1:28:00) Gatekeepers holding back the world of science
(1:32:20) Stoking terror, stifling science
(1:38:30) You’ll falsify your own psyche if you falsify your words
(1:43:00) Standing your ground, living toward truth
MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology Richard Lindzen talks about the inextricably intertwined link between the body politic and climate scientists with respect to promoting the climate alarmist narrative, during an in-depth interview for The New Criterionhttps://t.co/Mq2kwYZlVX
— CO2 Coalition (@CO2Coalition) January 26, 2023
