'Skeptics Guide' To Global Warming...

[Tony Dismukes]

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. How do his qualifications affect how his article should be received?

Dr. Lindzen is a highly qualified expert in the field, and I take his objections more seriously than almost any other global warming skeptic for that very reason. Nevertheless, his opinions place him in a very small minority in the field. I've tried to read up on what I can find of his arguments, and the counterarguments of the majority. So far as I can tell, as a non-expert, it seems like they've answered all of his arguments, but he hasn't answered all the arguments of those presenting evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

I should also note that Dr. Lindzen, although he has made numerous public statements in the press regarding his skepticism on anthropogenic climate change, has not published any peer-reviewed research of his own to contradict the consensus.

Here are some links discussing Lindzen's arguments:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...oint-by-point/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

[Jeff C.]

I found this rather hysterical website http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Ri...S_Lindzen.html that screams at the reader, with very poor grammer and spelling, what a monster Dr. Lindzen is. The same accusations - OPEC and the tobacco companies have him their payroll, yada yada yada.

Thanks for the links Tony. I will check them out.

Jeff Cook

[Webmaster]

I found this rather hysterical website http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Ri...S_Lindzen.html that screams at the reader, with very poor grammer and spelling, what a monster Dr. Lindzen is. The same accusations - OPEC and the tobacco companies have him their payroll, yada yada yada.

Thanks for the links Tony. I will check them out.

Jeff Cook

Yep, he is a shill of BIG tobacco, BIG oil, BIG cookies, BIG auto, BIG paper, BIG computers, BIG fast-food and probably a member of the Illuminati and secretly pushing for the New World Order (he is probably in league with the Anti-Christ too!).

The funny thing about these attempts to discredit folks with the evil "questionable associations" is that for some reason, most folks are more than happy to give the scientists on the other side of the argument a pass for the "questionable associations".

[Jeff C.]

Indeed, Robert.

Tony, I read your first link, then did a little checking on the author. I find a disturbing trend with these scientists, on both sides of the issue, attacking the person rather than debunking the science. For instance, we have this little gem:

' "If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don't always agree with the consensus," said Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, a former student of Lindzen's at MIT. "You show you're right and everyone else is wrong."

He certainly enjoys showing he's right and everyone else is wrong," Kirk-Davidoff continued. "If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that." ' From http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...ian.php?page=2

Now, that certainly doesn't prove which one of these guys is right. But it is disturbing that these "professionals" make public remarks attacking each others' personalities. Especially over an important issue such as this.

Jeff Cook

[Tony Dismukes]

Now, that certainly doesn't prove which one of these guys is right. But it is disturbing that these "professionals" make public remarks attacking each others' personalities. Especially over an important issue such as this.

Too true. Of course, scientists are human too, so they're just as prone to stupid egotistical personal squabbling as martial artists are.

In any case, the scientific debate won't be settled by personal remarks, but by the presentation of evidence in the publication of peer-reviewed research. That's where I think Lindzen is way, way behind in this argument.

[Webmaster]

But it is disturbing that these "professionals" make public remarks attacking each others' personalities. Especially over an important issue such as this.

From what I have seen with my own eye and heard with my own ears, most of these "professionals" would gladly cut their own children's throat when it comes to competing for funding.

[starkjudo]

Broadcast Meteorologist James Spann takes a big shot at the Weather Channel and the global warming hysteria:

http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650

"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."

[Ramirez]

Yep, he is a shill of BIG tobacco, BIG oil, BIG cookies, BIG auto, BIG paper, BIG computers, BIG fast-food and probably a member of the Illuminati and secretly pushing for the New World Order (he is probably in league with the Anti-Christ too!).

That is a bit boorish considering the criticisms of Milloy didn't mention Tobacco etc. , in fact it is off a skeptic page. It seems you are only skeptical of any science that doesn't agree with your opinion.

In any case I have stated no opinion because I don't have the neccessary expertise in climatology so if this is going to come down to argument from authority I am sure the number of scientists like Lindzen are in the minority.

[Webmaster]

That is a bit boorish considering the criticisms of Milloy didn't mention Tobacco etc. , in fact it is off a skeptic page. It seems you are only skeptical of any science that doesn't agree with your opinion.

In any case I have stated no opinion because I don't have the neccessary expertise in climatology so if this is going to come down to argument from authority I am sure the number of scientists like Lindzen are in the minority.

Boorish or not, the fact is that whenever a person does not tow the "established line", there are those that will not debate the science, but will instead attack the messenger. It is also a fact that in several hit pieces on Milloy, it is cited that he is/was on the Phillip Morris payroll. Phillip Morris=Big Tobacco.

Actually, I am skeptical of most science and that includes those that agree with me and those that do not. The problem is that there is very little research being done in which there is not an agenda from one side of a debate or another. The fact is that researchers must get funding in order to pay their own salaries, and those of their research staff. It is a reality that most of the funding sources or the communities which approve that funding or peer-review their research papers have an agenda. I can assure you that if you do not play the game, you don't get your research funded and you don't get your papers published. There is gobs of money in the whole climate change and the money is in support of climate change. Do you really think that someone would get a paper published or a grant renewed if his/her research showed it was a bunch of hogwash? I may be boorish and distrustful of most research, but if you think so, then you are incredibly naive.

[Ramirez]

Boorish or not, the fact is that whenever a person does not tow the "established line", there are those that will not debate the science, but will instead attack the messenger. It is also a fact that in several hit pieces on Milloy, it is cited that he is/was on the Phillip Morris payroll. Phillip Morris=Big Tobacco.

Actually, I am skeptical of most science and that includes those that agree with me and those that do not. The problem is that there is very little research being done in which there is not an agenda from one side of a debate or another. The fact is that researchers must get funding in order to pay their own salaries, and those of their research staff. It is a reality that most of the funding sources or the communities which approve that funding or peer-review their research papers have an agenda. I can assure you that if you do not play the game, you don't get your research funded and you don't get your papers published. There is gobs of money in the whole climate change and the money is in support of climate change. Do you really think that someone would get a paper published or a grant renewed if his/her research showed it was a bunch of hogwash? I may be boorish and distrustful of most research, but if you think so, then you are incredibly naive.

"but will instead attack the messenger.", you mean like your satirical response to my posting on Milloy? You make it sound like I am some conspiracy nut.


Please do not put words in my mouth, I never said you were boorish on most research, this is something you have added. I said your response to my post on Milloy's credentials is boorish, and again you bring up the Big Tobacco criticism although there was no mention of it in the Skepdic article.

[Webmaster]

You make it sound like I am some conspiracy nut.

Are you?

[Ramirez]

Are you?

LOL - okay, friends again?

[Webmaster]

LOL - okay, friends again?

Of course. Silly crap like this is no reason to not be.

[Webmaster]

I should also note that Dr. Lindzen, although he has made numerous public statements in the press regarding his skepticism on anthropogenic climate change, has not published any peer-reviewed research of his own to contradict the consensus.

To the contrary, below is his list of publications. If you look carefully, he has a number of publications on this topic.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html

[Tony Dismukes]

Thanks for that list, Robert. I'll have to spend some time looking through those.


BTW, I think I've worked out most of my response to your junkscience.com link, but I'll have to wait until I get off work this evening to write it up in detail.

[Webmaster]

Very interesting article...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

[Cliff Hargrave]

The most important message in this thread however, is that we all chose the wrong professions. We could have been researchers and made some serious coin with those grants.

[Ramirez]

The most important message in this thread however, is that we all chose the wrong professions. We could have been researchers and made some serious coin with those grants.

I don't think academics make a lot of money though, a law degree or MBA would be the way to go if you want to make a lot of money.

I know ph.Ds in physics that went to medical school once they saw the job prospects in academia.

[Webmaster]

Here is just one example of research funding with strings attached.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20070123a.html

[Ramirez]

Just to add to the debate, it should be interesting once this report comes out.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html