Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier's Financial Ties to Big Oil

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 12, 2007.


A recent Newsweek op-ed by global warming denier Richard Lindzen claims the meteorologist has no industry ties, but his bio is as misleading as his writing.
Advertisement

So Newsweek is running an opinion piece about global warming titled: "Why So Gloomy?" The piece is authored by Richard Lindzen, a well-known meteorologist, and his thesis about the potential melt-down of our climate can be boiled down to this: Don't worry, be happy!

At the bottom of the article, is this brief biographical sketch of the author:

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Sounds like he's on the up-and-up, no? After all, the guy's not one of those scientists who denies global warming and then cashes nice checks from a bunch of big energy firms, right? Maybe those wing-nuts are right when they deny that there's a scientific consensus about human activities contributing to global warming. Hmmm.

Oh, but wait. That name … Lindzen … sure does sound familiar.

Yes! From that excellent investigative piece in Harper's on the funding behind the climate skepticism "industry" …

In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change…

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics--Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others--who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself -- his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments -- have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!

But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek -- he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal -- appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.

Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

The report predicts: "increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought."

Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments that examine only the next 100 years may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, newsweek

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Lindzen's false credentials
Posted by: ScottP on Apr 12, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His credentials seem impressive partly because they're false. For example, his resume posted at MIT at:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
claims that he is "a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory". However, if you try to contact him there you'll find that is not true, he has no affiliation with JPL, distinguished or otherwise. Why someone who earns a nice salary at MIT feels the need to lie about his credentials and spread propaganda for hire is a mystery to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lindzen's false credentials Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» That depends greatly. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: That depends greatly. Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» Might have been a typo Posted by: xconservative
» RE: Lindzen's false credentials--Conceded Posted by: apophenia_monkey
Newsweek should only be sold in grocery stores next to the National Inquirer.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 12, 2007 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Newsweek doesn't do its primary job of informing the American people, then why even print the magazine at all?

A classic case of media failure is the falsified presidential biography I found on a State Department website in 2004 while surfing the Internet for information about George W.'s missing (AWOL) service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Brazenly, Shrub's phony military history claimed he flew ANG F102s almost SIX years when the actual time was 27 months. The text contained other misrepresentations as well -- all intentional, not typos or mistaken dictation.

Why the subterfuge?

To make then Texas Governor Bush competitive with his 2000 primary GOP opponent, Arizona Senator John McCain, who -- not coincidentally -- spent five and a half years as a POW in North Vietnam during the same time period.

How did the bogus bio get on a State Department website?

Obviously someone on the new White House staff screwed up in January 2001 and sent the wrong document over to State as a replacement for President Clinton's history.

To validate my smoking-gun discovery, I called the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

Unfortunately, NOT ONE U.S. paper or media outlet carried the story. Why? February 28 was a Saturday. Apparently everyone in the news business takes weekends off.

To make up for the failure, I always end my bog comments the same way.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (Bush's bogus bio).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A bit disingenuous. . .
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Apr 12, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While one can infer as they wish from Lindzen's funding sources, it does not seem to be fair to characterize his signing on to the IPCC report as diametrically opposed to his opinion pieces. He testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2001 almost immediately after the publication of the IPCC summary, but before the release of the full report, basically disavowing the policy interpretations.

I encourage a read of this (linked above and from his Wikipedia entry) for those who would take the reporting on the IPCC summary at face value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Warming?
Posted by: xi_people on Apr 12, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that I think Newsweek even makes a token appearance of objective journalism, but personally I think the hysteria about global warming is way overblown.

Any effort to research the Earth's heating and cooling cycles will reveal that its been doing this for billions of years. Not discounting the effects that pollution, etc. have on the planet, but the idea that human-caused factors are the driving force behind global warming is not justifiable, in my book.

Keep your eyes open, though. Its being said that the global warming scare is being used as yet another scare tactic utilized to clamp down on individual freedoms. Time will tell.....

While I don't believe in global warming (as a human-controlled factor), Peak Oil is the real deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global Warming? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Global Warming? Posted by: ignition
» RE: Global Warming? Posted by: xconservative
» Heart Warming Posted by: Habaro
» RE: Global Warming? Posted by: heftysmurf
Good work, Joshua
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 12, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a scientist, I've notice the amount of bogusness surrounding this topic increasing exponentially as of late all over the place. There's a huge disinformation campaign going on, or just getting started depending on how cynical one wants to be. It's volcanos, it's decaying ocean creatures, it's the sun - yes, I even saw a story claiming the entire solar system is undergoing GW (they had a 'researcher' from some unknown russian observatory for proof that it wasn't us causing it).

Expect this sort of thing and the strategy generally to ramp up even more as the stakes become higher. It'll probably work, given the low science literacy of americans, the generally low regard with which scientists are held in many circles, and our proclivity for liking to see problems magically disappear. And just because scientists tend to be an independent minded and often contrarian lot, there will always be someone willing to play devil's advocate and take the other side of an argument even if attention/nototiety and not money is the payoff. So everyone should be prepared for much more nonsense to come until the last glacier has entirely melted away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good work, Joshua x 2 Posted by: channing
Why does the US media do such an atrocious job of covering global warming?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 12, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't really get around the media ownership issue on this one. Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO). The major institution holders of WPO include Warren Buffet's Bershire Hathaway and Barclays UK; both are heavily invested in the oil industry (Barclays is the top holder of ExxonMobil). Don't expect Newsweek to publish any stories about who owns them, though - but they will appily carry water for their owners, and running Lindzen (discredited as an objective scientist) is just one example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Newsweek Irrelevant
Posted by: mariirwin on Apr 12, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much as I would like to believe that asking Newsweek to report news honestly would make a difference, fact is, Newsweek and many of its counterparts are increasing irrelevant. Serious news connoisseurs I know do not bother to look for news from these sources. I appreciate Alternet and other independent news sources because I find that I am much better informed than most people I talk to--I feel like I see "news" before it is mainsteam and I have time to consider it critically without spin. Often though, I do go to some of the tradidtional news sources just to see how they report it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Newsweek Irrelevant Posted by: Iconoclast421
Globalist Tag Team Doubles Up on Global Warming
Posted by: rwa on Apr 12, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kurt Nimmo weighs in:
Wednesday April 11th 2007

Have any doubt our “representatives” are on the same page? Well, consider the “smackdown” between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. During a Senate hearing room debate over “global warming,” the “conservative” Gingrich told the “liberal” Kerry he is all for “green conservatism,” in other words Gingrich has accepted the latest globalist plan to enslave billions of people—for their own good, of course.

Regardless of what you think about “global warming” or “greenhouse gas emissions,” the fact remains our rulers plan to exploit the situation for their own purposes. According to the Boston Globe, “the debate was proof of the emerging political consensus that global warming is for real, it also showed that profound disagreements remain over how to tackle the problem. In his remarks, Gingrich proposed giving polluters tax incentives to reduce their carbon emissions voluntarily, an approach Kerry derided as inadequate.”

In other words, our rulers and their political servants will keep up appearances, they will continue to kick around the old deflated “left versus right” paradigm. In fact, the “plan” to address “global warming” has nothing to do with corporations reducing “carbon emissions voluntarily.” It has everything to do with inculcating the public to accept more government control over their lives, from what electric light bulb to use to what car to drive, or not drive, as a “carbon tax” may make driving untenable for millions.

All of this and more will be enforced, naturally. In fact, “global warming” will eclipse the threat of “terrorism,” the latter a demonstrated farce cooked up as a control mechanism. “Sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel—a Republican Nebraska senator—and Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, [a] bill to make Global Warming a national security issue arrives in an era when other international bodies are taking steps to designate global warming as a high international priority,” reports the Canada Free Press.

In other words, our rulers have reached a consensus: so-called “global warming” is a far more effective tool for control than terrorism. I mean, how dare you insist on your constitutional rights, free speech, a right to a speedy trial, or the right to confront your accusers, etc., when the planet is at risk? Think about it...

“Gingrich criticized the limit proposed by Kerry and said the senator’s policy was to create a ‘level of pain’ to compel businesses to cut their emissions, whereas he said he wanted to create a ‘level of pleasure’ through tax breaks that would give incentives to polluters to develop new carbon-reducing technologies.”

Corporations and bankers rule the world, they are not slated for pain levels, as the neocon Gingrich asserts, that’s a fate reserved for the little people, the chumps so effortlessly bamboozled by camp fire stories, be they about Muslim terrorists or melting ice caps.

full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

18 seconds well spent.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 12, 2007 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so Lindzen is a sleazebag, Newseek spews corporate propaganda, and corporations will kill people for profit.

Very bad, but it's worse than that. We have two political parties that are controlled by the corporate establishment. It doesn't matter who you vote for the establishment wins.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rubbish!
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 12, 2007 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the foundations of rational and scientific argumentation is that we must distinguish between the speaker (or writer) and the opinion advanced. The article underscores the need for this distinction, for ideas are valid or invalid based on facts, not origin...

My carbon footprint is very small: I have no car, I walk most places, I dress warmly in the winter so as to use less heating energy, I dislike air conditioning, I eats lots of fruits and vegetables and no beef, I think Bush is horrible, the two parties corrupt...and I still think climate change variability is natural and only marginally affected by carbon emissions...and I get no money from anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How much of global warming is man accounting for?
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Apr 12, 2007 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read the IPCC report but nowhere can I find how much of Global Warming can be put at humanities door, human endeavour. That Global Warming is a fact and that it will change the climate on the Earth is for sure, many species will suffer but many species will be winners.

• But how much is man accountable for? 10 %, 30 % ,50 %, 90 %. Anybody?
• How much can we do make an impact? How much difference will the Kyoto agreement make?
• What are the costs? Could they be used better for other more pressing problems? How do you get most bang for the bucks?

I do not like when journalists use wordings such as Global Warming “deniers" as if they would be comparable to history revisionists that has denied the Holocaust and crimes of communism. The Holocaust is a fact as are the crimes of communism but to question the costs of countermeasures and to ask to what degree we humans are responsible do not warrant being called a “denier”.

A think that alarmism defeats its own goals. Remember

• What happened to the population explosion, humans would multiply like bacteria. Not going to happen? It will stop at 11-12 bn.

• The oil supply was during the energy crisis going to dry out the year 2000, never happened; oil resources have never been higher.

So I believe that we humans will mitigate and solve this issue as we have solved all other threats.

And yes the sky will not fall down tomorrow and this is not the End of the Earth. So pipe down!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear power is the solution Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Lomborg? Oh, please... Posted by: particle
» Thank you particle Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Thank you particle Posted by: particle
» RE: Thank you particle Posted by: mythbuster
» Al Gore? Oh, please... Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Al Gore? Oh, please... Posted by: particle
» RE: Al Gore? Oh, please... Posted by: mythbuster
» RE: Never been higher? Posted by: peaknik35
» RE: Never been higher! Posted by: Swedish liberal
Mankind 'can't influence' climate By Simon Kirby
Posted by: rwa on Apr 12, 2007 5:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
April 12, 2007


*Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
*'0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'
*Geologist says he doesn't care if no-one agrees - Video

MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.

Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.

“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.

“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”

Speaking last night after presenting his theory for the first time, to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney, Prof Plimer said he had researched the history of the sun, solar and supernovae activity and had been able to correlate global climates with solar activity.

“But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.

So he then examined how cosmic radiation builds up clouds.

A very active sun blows away the cosmic radiation, while a less active sun allows radiation to build up, he said.

“So you can very much tie in temperature, cloud formation, cosmic radiation and the sun,” he said.

The next part of Prof Plimer's research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.

He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.

Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.

Nor does the melting of polar ice have anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide, he said.

“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.

“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.

“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”

On the same basis, changes to sea level and temperature are also unrelated to anything happening today, he said.

“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.

Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.

There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.

The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.

“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.

He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.

But Prof Plimer conceded the politics of greenhouse gas emissions meant that attention was being given to energy efficiency, which he supported.

The professor, who is writing a book on the subject, said he only used validated scientific data, published in reputable peer-reviewed refereed journals, as the basis of his theories.

http://www.news.com.au/stor y/0,23599,21542564-421,00.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little more background on Lindzen from ExxonSecrets.org:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 12, 2007 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richard Lindzen, denialist extraordinaire

The parallels between the current crop of 'climate skeptic scientists' and the sordid tobacco lobby are numerous - you've got the tobacco research institutes (like the George C. Marshall Insititute, the American Petroleum Institution, the Competetive Enterprise Institute, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, etc. etc.), the industry bankrolled scientists who are called upon to testify before Congress - it's really a carbon copy repeat of what the tobacco lobby was up to (go see the movies, "Thank You For Smoking", and "The Insider" for the details).

From Exxonsecrets.org:

KEY QUOTES
11 June, 2001
"The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater."
Source: "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," WSJ 6/11/01

23 February, 2004
"We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapour, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not well correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide."
Source: "Canadian Reactions To Sir David King," Hill Times Ottawa 2/23/04

14 February, 2007
"To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."
Source: San Diego Union Tribune 2007

31 January, 2007
"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
Source: CNN transcript - Larry King Live 1/31/07

QUOTES
1 December, 2004
"It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are ‘record breakers' or even whether current temperatures are ‘unprecedented.’ These are simply red herrings designed to obfuscate the fact that the change over the past century has been small. The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of a degree and all of you know intuitively that that isn't very much."
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)

12 April, 2006
"Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."
Source: Wall Street Journal Lindzen op-ed 2/12/06


For more on Lindzen, see http://www.logicalscience.com/ skeptics/Lindzen.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good post, Joshua!
Posted by: particle on Apr 12, 2007 7:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for shining a light on Lindzen, the last of the "legitimate" climate septics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Climate Change is for real
Posted by: Aimee on Apr 12, 2007 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newsweek and other media outfits have a responsibility to inform the humans on Planet Earth: Global Climate Change is real and we all are in danger.

"We are all children of the Great Spirit, we all belong to Mother Earth. Our planet is in great trouble and if we keep carrying old grudges and do not work together, we will all die."
- CHIEF SEATTLE

Aimee
DataOptions.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global Climate Change is for real Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
The Global Warming Jihad
Posted by: pennyscan on Apr 13, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a more interesting perspective

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer152.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tstaverosky
Posted by: tstaverosky on Apr 13, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My experience with the medical community, both doctors and researchers has proven to me that most scientist are extremely hesitant to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge. I often comment to medical colleagues "if all the information necessary to understand how the body works, what causes disease and what it takes to cure disease was represented by a gallon of water, what our brightest minds truly understand so far is about two tablespoons." The typical response I hear goes like this "yes the more I read and learn the more I realize how little we truly understand."

I think this is the point of Lindzen's comments. Most of the climate scientist have been unwilling to acknowledge how little we truly understand at this point. It would be like going to the doctor, have him take your pulse and blood pressure and say "you have heart disease and we need to do a quadruple bypass today." You might argue for more tests and taking time to decide and he would say "yes but what if we are right? You can't afford to wait."

Guess I am always weary of the alarmist mentality but we would all be well served to gain a greater understanding of what science does not know as well as what it does know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dominion over nature Posted by: rwa
» Arse-about: some corrections Posted by: HeroesAll
He's not the only one
Posted by: xbj on Apr 13, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people in the so-called left online media are derisive of global warming... most notable is Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com, which makes me suspect Saudi oil funding (especially since he's one of the number one "Jews did 9-11" guys). But others are unwittingly joining the fray, blaming the "New World Order" for using global warming concern to, horror of horrors, unite mankind in a common cause, God forbid! And using fear of increased taxation to drive their points home.

Another point global warming deniers claim is that certain winters are colder and a tiny handful of glaciers are actually increasing. What they don't realize is the feedback mechanism of the earth; as global warming increases more water evaporates from the oceans, falls as rain, and in higher latitudes freezes. Also the jet stream, not having a permanent "continent" of ice to move around in the northern hemisphere, starts moving like a sidewiding snake, going first due south and then due north, causing ridiculous weather extremes (been happening since the early 90's and continually getting more extreme as the arctic melts.) That causes more weather extremes, one side of the country freezing with a jetstream coming from due north while the other side boils with a jetstream coming from due south. And then reversing itself. Global warming means more weather extremes, eventually leading to a mini, and possibly a major ice age as the earth's feedback mechanism corrects itself over centuries and increased precipitation falls as massive snow and ice storms. Anarctica may well melt and be refrozen over all of Canada and the northern US. Ice cores show that every ice age was preceeded by a brief period of radically increased planetary warming.

Global warming is real, and it is caused by man, but the current cause is not just warming up the planet, but the entire solar system. Science has already determined that the entire solar system is heating up, the Sun, Mars, Venus, the entire thing. People like Rivero use this to deny any possible cause by man, but the current cause is misuse of top secret scalar weaponry waves (do a google search), which according to string theory have the capability of transversing not just entire solar systems, but from one universe in the string theory multiverse to another. These waves, in fact, might well be keeping the universes safely apart, and screwing with them could bring universes closer together creating universe-wide friction, and eventually temporal space-time rifts. We don't have any idea what would happen if one universe collides with another, and I don't think we want to find out. But we might have no choice in the matter.

The various governments and militaries engaging in this top secret nonconventional yet very convenient "untraceable" warfare are playing with fire and they're going to burn the entire planet down very soon. No amount of human intervention will be able to cool the planet, indeed our universe, back down to normal levels until this warfare is stopped, and we can't even get our government to refrain from using micronukes on our own skyscapers with people in them, nor get an admittedly decreasing but still far too large percentage of the America population to face the truth about that, let alone top secret scalar warfare.

Bleak... very bleak. Armageddon in Revelations looks like a party compared to the hell they've made and are continuing to make of this planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He's not the only one Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: He's not the only one Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» Bizarre, but entertaining. Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: Bizarre, but entertaining. Posted by: Lavachequirit
Another leftist smokescreen
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Apr 13, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Irrespective of the aforementioned news, by any scientific measure the suspected causes of global warming are mere hypotheses.

However, according to the progressive faith, human activity is the main causal factor. This is absurd.

Like religious depostism of past history, progressive ideologues have shown again their emotionalism by trying to force unproven doctrine onto rational and objective citizens without the requisite scientific support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming is not the only issues related to green house gas emission
Posted by: eochiai on Apr 13, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the comment by Mike 1997: "that I don't understand the basis of this argument. You agree that global warming is happening but say that not all of it is caused by humans. So there are multiple causes to this phenomenon only some of which humans could control. Your conclusion; that humans therefure, should do nothing seems backwards to me. If you are correct, shouldn't we do even more to control what we can?" Indeed we should control what we can, but we should do so not only because of its relevance to the global warming but also because the rise of green house gas content in the atmosphere is a sign of the excessive use of fossil fuel. This definitely leads to a rapid exhaustion of fossil fuel. Some may argue that mankind will find alternative energy sources in time, but fossil carbon is not only an energy source but, more importantly, the source for producing any compounds containing carbon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dominion over nature Posted by: rwa
» RE: Dominion over nature Posted by: particle
Global warming is a distraction
Posted by: Reader11722 on Apr 13, 2007 9:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmentalism and Al Gore are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Soon, the sinking of an Aircraft Carrier(by Mossad) will occur and the US will 'retaliate' against Iran. Which AIPAC-lobbying country benefit's from that? How much will the environment matter after a Nuke attack on Iran? Not much. Stop Iraq, Prevent Iran then wprry about the environment.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joshua: It's the ultimate dilemma.
Posted by: mythbuster on Apr 14, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are starting to realize the Global Warming is a national security issue. The unrestricted use of fossil fules is actually endangering the Earth. Ironically, American control of the world movement of fossil fuels is a major part of the Imperium's security strategy. This dilemma, "we are killing ourselves to protect ourselves," would be worth a column, don't you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]