Scientific Opinion on Climate Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...
Looks like almost everyone's in agreement, there.
MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
41–50 of 74 posts
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You can and many do "do science" without offering alternatives, all you have to do is to point out how those you are criticizing are wrong, e.g. in interpretations of data, use of statistics, etc. 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?
yes, we agree. science and rigor, not opinion and conjecture.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#43Earlier 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.
I was not aware that it was possible for an institution to have an opinion.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#44Earlier 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…
"After all, the connection between their conclusions and their funding is even stronger."
Citation? I'm really not aware of any pro-global-climate-change corporations paying people to issue opinions favorable to themselves. Perhaps you can point some out to me.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#45Earlier 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."
Actually, I think it was Dr Petr Beckman that originally said that in the early 1970s.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You can and many do "do science" without offering alternatives, all you have to do is to point out how those you are criticizing are wrong, e.g. in interpretations of data, use of statistics, etc. 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?
No statistician, Canadian or otherwise, has shown that Mann's methods could generate a 'hockey stick' curve from random data.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#47http://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…
"his point is that there isn't really a consensus, which it demonstrably true"
Not at all. You can search through the peer-reviewed papers in vain for any saying there isn't any anthropogenic climate change; there are no such papers. None. Zero.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I don't know, but this specific phenomena goes back to 200 AD (sic), and then you can go back to, oh, the Book of Revelations and so on. There seems to be a strong drive in at least some people towards this sort of thing. 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 t…
It isn't just the politicians either, where do you think the major environmental organizations get their money? Since the major cleanup during the 1970s, they have invented "crisis" after "crisis" to keep the money coming in. The "ozone hole" and "acid rain" crises were as overblown, running toward outright fraudulent, as the AGW crap.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money is one motivator. Fame or the crusade itself may be others. Actually believing in the disaster and wanting to save people's lives is another motivator. It depends on the person. The money argument is a pretty easy one. We are at a potential shift point in how we power ourselves. The problem is that the "new" power sources are not economical yet. Political pressure with subsides can make it economical (for the c…
"I really wish media and politics had stayed out of the science. I mourn the loss of objectivity, testing, and discovery." I'm sure Galileo felt the same way... Science that might fundamentally shift worldviews has always been subject to meddling by the powers that be.
I am more concerned about the media's sudden punditry.
Re: MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen: Global Warming Alarmists Are in Denial
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can and many do "do science" without offering alternatives, all you have to do is to point out how those you are criticizing are wrong, e.g. in interpretations of data, use of statistics, etc. 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?
No statistician, Canadian or otherwise, has shown that Mann's methods could generate a 'hockey stick' curve from random data.
Red noise, to be precise: http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise