yes, Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, writes propaganda for the fossil fuel companies.
just check out the groups he disagrees with, have a look at his airy fairy political style of arguing, and wonder why oh why does he still have anyone listen to him, or publish him, or still have a job?!
he is an embarrassment for m.i.t.
this same organisation published a rant by him 5 years ago as well .. the same bull$#!T.
from wikipedia of course:
Supporters of the global warming theory
Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include:
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India [17].
The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [18]
The Union of Concerned Scientists
[edit]
Opponents of the global warming theory
Some of the most vocal opponents of the global warming theory from within the climate/scientific community have been:
Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia
Robert Balling of Arizona State University
Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [19]
S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ross McKitrick
Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Claims that there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades and dismisses computer climate models. [20].
have a look at this also to see how genuinely Mr Linzen backs his views with his own money:
Attempted betting on global warming, 2004-2005
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] Climatologist James Annan,[17] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[18] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[19] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[20]
In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1 odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now, and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds." According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.[21]. (Annan subsequently responded to Lindzen's response.[22]).
Originally posted by flexmoreSo, Flex, is truth determined by the relative volume and frequency of one side of the debate?
Supporters of the global warming theory
{bunch of organizations}
Opponents of the global warming theory
{bunch of individuals}
And a somewhat related question: What percentage of the organizations "supporting the global warming theory" stand to see the source of their funds dry up if it turns out that fossil fuels, etc. are not causing a global temperature rise?
Originally posted by The Plumberon any level of truth this 'debate' is very lopsided.
So, Flex, is truth determined by the relative volume and frequency of one side of the debate?
And a somewhat related question: What percentage of the organizations "supporting the global warming theory" stand to see the source of their funds dry up if it turns out that fossil fuels, etc. are not causing a global temperature rise?
the only way in which there is any balance is funding: the fossil fuel groups are very wealthy.
and so you are correct in seeing a flaw in the arguement ... a flaw in the arguement against warming. it is this funding which allows these nutters to continue with the volume and frequency that they do ... despite any scientific backing.
Originally posted by The PlumberThe Article simply disagrees with every fact in the movie, but it sounds too much like preaching. I don't believe that he reffers to the pictures. I'm reminded of arguments made in favor of star wars. The rest of the world believes in global warming, but the US seems to have decided to isolate itself and let China pass it in the minimum level of fuel efficiency. Finally, the article says that the temperature in the world has stayed the same for the past eight years, and THAT is false.
Read the article....🙄
Originally posted by flexmoreespecially, take a look at the last two answers.
[b]Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Claims that there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades and dismisses computer climate models. [20].
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/
"Discover Dialogue:
Meteorologist William Gray
Weather Seer: ‘We’re Lucky’
‘Eight of the last 10 years have been very active—we’ve never had as much activity. Yet we went from 1992 until last year with no hurricanes coming through Florida’
By Kathy A. Svitil
DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 09 | September 2005 | Environment
....
Meteorologist William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting.
...
You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?
G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.
G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.
With last year’s hurricane season so active, and this year’s looking like it will be, won’t people say it’s evidence of global warming?
G: The Atlantic has had more of these storms in the least 10 years or so, but in other ocean basins, activity is slightly down. Why would that be so if this is climate change? The Atlantic is a special basin? The number of major storms in the Atlantic also went way down from the middle 1960s to the middle ’90s, when greenhouse gases were going up.
Why is there scientific support for the idea?
G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases?
Are your funding problems due in part to your views?
G: I can’t be sure, but I think that’s a lot of the reason. I have been around 50 years, so my views on this are well known. I had NOAA money for 30 some years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn’t get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe chances if getting funding are routnely around the 10% mark. Less if your submission is crap.
especially, take a look at the last two answers.
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/
"Discover Dialogue:
Meteorologist William Gray
Weather Seer: ‘We’re Lucky’
‘Eight of the last 10 years have been very active—we’ve never had as much activity. Yet we went from 1992 until last year with no hurricanes coming ...[text shortened]... cut off. I couldn’t get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.
"
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by The Plumbertruth is not determined by how many people beleive in an idea. however the fact that there is a small group of nutters who beleive that the world is flat does not make it so, occasionally the magority of science gets somthing wrong and a few maverics may be right. but this is VERY rare, even if you don't look at the evidence and just ask which is more likely that the maverics are right or the rest of the scientific comunity the odds you will be quoted would be far higher than 50:1, and they get even worse if you look at the evidence. however the thing to remember that it is climate change not global warming that the majority of scientists hold is occuring, one highly unlikely but possible outcome of which is a new iceage (initiated by the north atlantic current shutting down) . global average temperature rise however is far more likely.
So, Flex, is truth determined by the relative volume and frequency of one side of the debate?
Originally posted by scottishinnzthat's if you're a struggling young biology PhD (and not just because your submission is more likely to be crap then). not if you "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert".
The chances if getting funding are routnely around the 10% mark. Less if your submission is crap.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe fact that the rest of the world believes in global warming is irrelevant then? Look, as I said earlier, we can always find scientists that have a good reputation but say crap. Look at what happened in the Regan administration: a tiny percentage of the scientists believed in the crap that was star wars, and all of those argued vigurously for it, and the government took THOSE SCIENTISTS on. It's the same deal here: people will go through extreme lengths to prove that what they want to be true is true.
that's if you're a struggling young biology PhD (and not just because your submission is more likely to be crap then). not if you "may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert".
Originally posted by Vapatait turned out those scientists were right.
The fact that the rest of the world believes in global warming is irrelevant then? Look, as I said earlier, we can always find scientists that have a good reputation but say crap. Look at what happened in the Regan administration: a tiny percentage of the scientists believed in the crap that was star wars, and all of those argued vigurously for it, and the go ...[text shortened]... l here: people will go through extreme lengths to prove that what they want to be true is true.