Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#11

Post by hga »

dgabriel wrote: post #5

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

First item: "How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?"

Which is followed by an appeal to authority. Most of the following is appeals to authority, attacks on his funding (necessarily from eeevil sources since "the consensus" has halted funding to "deniers"), complaints about his not have current peer reviewed papers (see previous item), etc.

Sorry, but if we're talking real science, all he needs is an inconvenient fact to demolish the consensus (which is not quite what is being argued here; his point is that there isn't really a consensus, which it demonstrably true).

There are some attempts to deal with what he says on a basis of facts and the like (although some of them are appeals to the authority of the web site, e.g. general claims without references that would allow you to judge for yourself), but the site's dishonest style doesn't exactly encourage you to bother to see if it's telling the truth in those instances.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#12

Post by anamax »

pavs wrote: post #9
dgabriel wrote: post #5

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

Important part: " Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institut…

If you're going to argue that he's been bought, you get to explain why AGW supporters aren't bought as well. After all, the connection between their conclusions and their funding is even stronger.

Of course, the truth is that money isn't the most corrupting influence by a large margin - true belief is. You can often spot true believers by their insistence that money is the only reason why their position isn't universally accepted.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#13

Post by ZeroGravitas »

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #3

Header from the author's wikipedia profile: "Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books…

I'd heard of him because he'd misinterpreted satellite data that apparently conflicted with the general consensus. I'd assumed that was an honest mistake but it appears that every time one of his theories gets shot down, he just moves on to the next one. The fact that they all seem to have an implicit message of "don't worry about it, everything's fine" is looking less coincidental as time passes.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#14

Post by DrSprout »

While it's true that there's no consensus on the source of the warming, it is true that the planet is warming.

That's something that tends to get lost in the shuffle, and it's really scary what percentage of the American public believes that the fundamental point is false. It also seems to me that Lindzen is exaggerating the degree of dispute over the future climate trends. I do agree that there's not a lot of evidence we can prevent the climate from warming considerably over the next 50 years or so, but there is a general consensus that the climate will warm considerably over the next 50 years.

It also seems there's a general consensus this is a problem, even if it's purely natural. Lindzen is doing his fellow researchers a disservice by confusing the politics and science of the issue.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#15

Post by ZeroGravitas »

hga wrote: post #11
dgabriel wrote: post #5

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

First item: " How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?" Which is followed by an appeal to authority. Most of the following is appeals to authority, attacks on his funding (necessarily from eeevil sources since "the consensus" has halted funding to "deniers"), complaints about his not have current peer reviewed papers (see previous item), etc. Sorry, but if we're talking real s…

If someone is arguing that there is no consensus of opinion (second sentence on the page: "He is rather well known for claiming that "There's no consensus on global warming.""), then long lists of prominent institutions who have subscribed to that opinion isn't an appeal to authority, it's relevant info.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#16

Post by hga »

pavs wrote: post #9
dgabriel wrote: post #5

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

Important part: " Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institut…

Why is this important? He's not going to get any funding by the government, which has decided "the science is settled".

By this standard, the funding of the members of "the consensus" is just as important and just as damning, if not more, since there's billions annually being funded on the other side.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#17

Post by hga »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #15
hga wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First item: " How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?" Which is followed by an appeal to authority. Most of the following is appeals to authority, attacks on his funding (necessarily from eeevil sources since "the consensus" has halted funding to "deniers"), complaints about his not have current peer reviewed papers (see previous item), etc. Sorry, but if we're talking real s…

If someone is arguing that there is no consensus of opinion (second sentence on the page: "He is rather well known for claiming that "There's no consensus on global warming.""), then long lists of prominent institutions who have subscribed to that opinion isn't an appeal to authority, it's relevant info.

Without lists of those on the other side, its relevance is limited.

Insert, oh, the former "consensus" against heliocentrism. Relevant in a period calling for capital trials against "deniers" and HN commentators calling for their criminal prosecution (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283240).

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#18

Post by diego_moita »

gaius wrote: post #7
dgabriel wrote: post #5

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

Anyone who thinks "skeptic" is a perjorative is not a scientist.

Don't be silly. This is not about scientific skepticism anymore.

But, in truth, Lindzen and the WSJ are not skeptics, they're deniers. Skeptic is someone not convinced that something is true. Denier is someone that believes that something is false. Lindzen (and the WSJ) are deniers.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#19

Post by nsfmc »

gaius wrote: post #7
dgabriel wrote: post #5

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

Anyone who thinks "skeptic" is a perjorative is not a scientist.

> Well for one thing Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend. Despite this he still manages to get his opinions published...

No, but in order to be a scientist, you have to do... science, not opinion.

Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial

#20

Post by jdminhbg »

euroclydon wrote: post #8
hga wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm ... he's been well known in this field for both of the above since the late '80s, when a friend of mine interviewed him. At the time he effectively said he had been rather naive in the publication of his research (as I recall it was a study going back 200+ years on ship temperature reports, rather important data since the majority of the world is covered by the seas). He had thought that the scientific community…

What motivates these global alarmists? And how do they get money by being so shrill? Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most?

"Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most?"

You can page back through the last umpteen national election results if you doubt this is true.

Post reply on HN