21–30 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 univers…
http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Anyone who thinks "skeptic" is a perjorative is not a scientist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are those Canadian statisticians not doing science when they point out that you can use Mann's methods to get a hockey stick out of random noise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ).
Of course if it was, then this is a fairly convincing set of authorities, being the National Academy of Science in the US and their equivalents in the 12 largest countries in the world.
Who's missing that could even theoretically be on the other side? South Korea, Mexico, Spain? I have no idea who would rank up there with them but if I had to bet I'd say their national bodies representing science are going to be on the same side of the debate as those listed.
Again, this is someone who denies there is a consensus. That's relatively easy to fact check. It would be like knowing whether the church was for or against the Sun orbiting the Earth. It's an entirely seperate question from whether that position is factually correct. And, if you can't get that right why trust you on anything more complex?
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?
Politicians gain power by not "letting a serious crisis go to waste" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow); how real a crisis is irrelevant. Funding naturally follows for those talking up the crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ).
Well at least we've established that it's not an appeal to authority. Of course if it was, then this is a fairly convincing set of authorities, being the National Academy of Science in the US and their equivalents in the 12 largest countries in the world. Who's missing that could even theoretically be on the other side? South Korea, Mexico, Spain? I have no idea who would rank up there with them but if I had to bet I…
It has nothing to do with theory or data, it's not science, it's science policy.
As Jerry Pournelle said, "Science policy is to science as birdshot is to birds."
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 eviden…
The only way you're going to convince "skeptics" like myself (I only deny that the science is settled) will be to retrieve the original data sets the CRU lost and then do the science again in a totally open manner. Share the data, publish the code and methods, etc.
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?
If you doubt this, I'd like to introduce you to the Department of Homeland Security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well at least we've established that it's not an appeal to authority. Of course if it was, then this is a fairly convincing set of authorities, being the National Academy of Science in the US and their equivalents in the 12 largest countries in the world. Who's missing that could even theoretically be on the other side? South Korea, Mexico, Spain? I have no idea who would rank up there with them but if I had to bet I…
An appeal to a "consensus" is by definition an appeal to authority. It has nothing to do with theory or data, it's not science, it's science policy. As Jerry Pournelle said, "Science policy is to science as birdshot is to birds."
I can claim that 60% of US citizens believe in angels and cite surveys to back that claim up. You can argue about whether that fact is correct with or without a personal belief in angels.
If someone (perhaps someone with an axe to grind for or against the existence of angels) simply refused to accept that evidence of 60% belief and provided nothing in return, then that alone would make them a dubious source to me.
This whole thread started with your confusion of a list of prominant subscribers to global warming which was offered as proof of consensus with it being proof of the consensus position itself. Let's not end in the same place we started.