Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

[Old Rocks]

More scientists

 

[mamooth]

From the OP link, Linzen published his nonsense at "Prager University".

What's Prager U? It's not a real university. It has no educational credentials anywhere. It's just a YouTube channel, financed by a couple of fracking billionaires, that pushes kook-right-fringe nonsense like "Intelligent Design" and "Why Christians are Persecuted".

That's how far kook Lindzen has fallen. He's not even trying real science any more. He's openly signed on with the religious nutters, to get his hands on some more of that sweet, sweet fossil-fuel cash. Yet another example of how so many deniers are motivated mainly by money to push their pseudoscience.

 

[jc456]

Lindzen also testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "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." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

Lindzen has had his hypothesis falsified across the board. He no longer has any credibility within the scientific community.

His credentials seem to be impressive and do give him some authority in the climate debate. However, as you suggest, his affiliations are very troubling. As far as I know he still hasn't decided if tobacco is a dangerous addiction. Also;

ExxonSecrets website says, "The Annapolis Center (Lindzen is a Past Member, Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council) actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and CEO, Richard Seibert was a former National Association of Manufacturers Vice President".
"Every April The Annapolis Center hosted an annual fundraising dinner in Washington D.C. in which an individual or individuals is honoured "for work in their field supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making"." These included

• Sen James Inhofe 2004
• Sen R. Joe Barton 2005
• Rep. Richard Pombo 2006

He is listed as one of The Heartland Institute's "Experts". The Heartland Institute is one of the most dangerous front groups in Americas from what I've read.
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. They lobby for;

• Countering global warming
• Genetically engineered crops and products;
• The privatization of public services;
• The introduction of school vouchers;
• The deregulation of health care insurance;

In a statement submitted to the charity research group, Guidestar, Heartland states that "people devote time to learn about subjects only if they believe acquiring specific knowledge will benefit them personally. Often, this seems unlikely. Consequently, most people choose rationally to remain ignorant about many public policy issues. The Heartland Institute has overcome the problem of 'rational ignorance' by inventing publications busy elected officials and the public will actually read and come to trust. Our publications are highly effective and inexpensive vehicles for communicating messages on public policy.
In February 2012 confidential documents from the Heartland Institute were leaked to bloggers. Damaging revelations included the identification of some corporate funders of Heartland: Microsoft, tobacco giant Altria, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, and the General Motors Foundation. The documents describe payments by Heartland to some contrarian scientists: for example, Craig Idso, head of an organization of climate change deniers in Arizona, was receiving over $139,000 annually.
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability:
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
The Marshall Institute - One executive director of the Marshall Institute, Matthew Crawford, became so disillusioned that he resigned after only five months on the job. Crawford wrote that “the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank.”
And...""...certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning"

Most of this info comes from sourcewatch, they list many more shady front groups Lindzen has been a paid mouthpiece for besides the groups you mentioned.

question, if tobacco is dangerous, why do sooooooo many people inhale its smoke? hmmmmmmmm not sure the argument point to tobacco. it's still sold. It must not be dangerous.

Alcohol, tobacco, and pot are all dangerous to one's health. They are legal because of the difficulty in policing them. That simply does not make economic sense. So, we tolerate their use, except in situations where their use creates dangers for others.

so you want to jail someone cause they disagree with your view of climate, but let walk around folks who are conscientiously using drugs to live with. Causing higher costs for health care and its insurance, but hey talk bad about climate and we're going to kill you. Wow, dude, that's just messed up. Yet your belief system.

 

[jc456]

The vast majority of scientists in every nation on earth state that AGW is real, and that it is changing our climate. To claim that they are all wrong, or all in some sort of conspiracy simply leads to you being labeled as a tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

and yet can't quite figure out how to prove it.

 

[jc456]

LOL

Climate "Science"

that's funny every time I see it.

 

[bripat9643]

Lindzen also testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "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." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

Lindzen has had his hypothesis falsified across the board. He no longer has any credibility within the scientific community.

I believe he testified to the harmlessness of second hand smoke, and he is entirely correct, of course.

All the AWG "scientists" get thousands of dollars from the government every week.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lindzen also testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "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." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

Lindzen has had his hypothesis falsified across the board. He no longer has any credibility within the scientific community.

His credentials seem to be impressive and do give him some authority in the climate debate. However, as you suggest, his affiliations are very troubling. As far as I know he still hasn't decided if tobacco is a dangerous addiction. Also;

ExxonSecrets website says, "The Annapolis Center (Lindzen is a Past Member, Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council) actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and CEO, Richard Seibert was a former National Association of Manufacturers Vice President".
"Every April The Annapolis Center hosted an annual fundraising dinner in Washington D.C. in which an individual or individuals is honoured "for work in their field supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making"." These included

• Sen James Inhofe 2004
• Sen R. Joe Barton 2005
• Rep. Richard Pombo 2006

He is listed as one of The Heartland Institute's "Experts". The Heartland Institute is one of the most dangerous front groups in Americas from what I've read.
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. They lobby for;

• Countering global warming
• Genetically engineered crops and products;
• The privatization of public services;
• The introduction of school vouchers;
• The deregulation of health care insurance;

In a statement submitted to the charity research group, Guidestar, Heartland states that "people devote time to learn about subjects only if they believe acquiring specific knowledge will benefit them personally. Often, this seems unlikely. Consequently, most people choose rationally to remain ignorant about many public policy issues. The Heartland Institute has overcome the problem of 'rational ignorance' by inventing publications busy elected officials and the public will actually read and come to trust. Our publications are highly effective and inexpensive vehicles for communicating messages on public policy.
In February 2012 confidential documents from the Heartland Institute were leaked to bloggers. Damaging revelations included the identification of some corporate funders of Heartland: Microsoft, tobacco giant Altria, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, and the General Motors Foundation. The documents describe payments by Heartland to some contrarian scientists: for example, Craig Idso, head of an organization of climate change deniers in Arizona, was receiving over $139,000 annually.
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability:
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
The Marshall Institute - One executive director of the Marshall Institute, Matthew Crawford, became so disillusioned that he resigned after only five months on the job. Crawford wrote that “the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank.”
And...""...certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning"

Most of this info comes from sourcewatch, they list many more shady front groups Lindzen has been a paid mouthpiece for besides the groups you mentioned.

Funny:

You all quote his affiliations and yet the affiliations of those you believe with big government, left wing socialists and their agenda are no problem to you...

Hypocrites! I wonder if the LOG in you own eyes is causing you to be blind or is it CATS (Cranial Anal Thrust Syndrome).

 

[bripat9643]

Lindzen also testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco.

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "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." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

Lindzen has had his hypothesis falsified across the board. He no longer has any credibility within the scientific community.

His credentials seem to be impressive and do give him some authority in the climate debate. However, as you suggest, his affiliations are very troubling. As far as I know he still hasn't decided if tobacco is a dangerous addiction. Also;

ExxonSecrets website says, "The Annapolis Center (Lindzen is a Past Member, Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council) actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and CEO, Richard Seibert was a former National Association of Manufacturers Vice President".
"Every April The Annapolis Center hosted an annual fundraising dinner in Washington D.C. in which an individual or individuals is honoured "for work in their field supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making"." These included

• Sen James Inhofe 2004
• Sen R. Joe Barton 2005
• Rep. Richard Pombo 2006

He is listed as one of The Heartland Institute's "Experts". The Heartland Institute is one of the most dangerous front groups in Americas from what I've read.
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. They lobby for;

• Countering global warming
• Genetically engineered crops and products;
• The privatization of public services;
• The introduction of school vouchers;
• The deregulation of health care insurance;

In a statement submitted to the charity research group, Guidestar, Heartland states that "people devote time to learn about subjects only if they believe acquiring specific knowledge will benefit them personally. Often, this seems unlikely. Consequently, most people choose rationally to remain ignorant about many public policy issues. The Heartland Institute has overcome the problem of 'rational ignorance' by inventing publications busy elected officials and the public will actually read and come to trust. Our publications are highly effective and inexpensive vehicles for communicating messages on public policy.
In February 2012 confidential documents from the Heartland Institute were leaked to bloggers. Damaging revelations included the identification of some corporate funders of Heartland: Microsoft, tobacco giant Altria, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, and the General Motors Foundation. The documents describe payments by Heartland to some contrarian scientists: for example, Craig Idso, head of an organization of climate change deniers in Arizona, was receiving over $139,000 annually.
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability:
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
The Marshall Institute - One executive director of the Marshall Institute, Matthew Crawford, became so disillusioned that he resigned after only five months on the job. Crawford wrote that “the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank.”
And...""...certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning"

Most of this info comes from sourcewatch, they list many more shady front groups Lindzen has been a paid mouthpiece for besides the groups you mentioned.

Funny:

You all quote his affiliations and yet the affiliations of those you believe with big government, left wing socialists and their agenda are no problem to you...

Hypocrites! I wonder if the LOG in you own eyes is causing you to be blind or is it CATS (Cranial Anal Thrust Syndrome).

You don't understand. Government can do no wrong. The second people go to work for the government they become selfless angels who never take their own personal welfare into consideration.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Lindzen now has less credibility among his former peers than Gish. At least Gish never had an education to throw away.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh yeah, all them scientists working for big government, like NOAA, NASA, the USGS, ect. And all the scientists working for the equivalent of those agencies in Europe, Japan, Russia, and China. Even in India. Since they all state the same thing concerning the validity of AGW you are positing a vast international conspiracy. Make sure your little tin hat is not too tight. Might shut off the little blood flow that presently exists there.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh yeah, all them scientists working for big government, like NOAA, NASA, the USGS, ect. And all the scientists working for the equivalent of those agencies in Europe, Japan, Russia, and China. Even in India. Since they all state the same thing concerning the validity of AGW you are positing a vast international conspiracy. Make sure your little tin hat is not too tight. Might shut off the little blood flow that presently exists there.

Nope. It's not a conspiracy. It's just a bunch of ticks sucking on the government tit whose best interest lies in supporting the AGW con and keeping the government gravy flowing.

It's odd that douche bags like you who are always claiming the do-called "deniers" are all part of a conspiracy are the first to accuse your critics in believing in one. That's just one of your many behaviors that qualifies you as a douche bag.

 

[Crick]

Nope. It's not a conspiracy. It's just a bunch of ticks sucking on the government tit whose best interest lies in supporting the AGW con and keeping the government gravy flowing.

HAAHAHAHAHahahaaaaaaa

It's not a "conspiracy", it's a "con".

English much? What a buffoon.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Trump will zero out their funding and fire all the data manipulators and that will be the last you ever hear about melting ice caps

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. It's not a conspiracy. It's just a bunch of ticks sucking on the government tit whose best interest lies in supporting the AGW con and keeping the government gravy flowing.

HAAHAHAHAHahahaaaaaaa

It's not a "conspiracy", it's a "con".

English much? What a buffoon.

How ironic,

con
kän/
informal
verb

1. persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception.
   "I conned him into giving me your home number"

noun

1. an instance of deceiving or tricking someone.
   "when depositors, realizing that the whole thing is a con, demand repayment"

 

[Crick]

So, you are claiming that the world's climate scientists are not acting in concert, they just all happen to be producing the same false data year after year after year.

 

[bripat9643]

So, you are claiming that the world's climate scientists are not acting in concert, they just all happen to be producing the same false data year after year after year.

They are feathering their own nests, and they know who the hand that feeds them is. It doesn't take a conspiracy to do that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, you are claiming that the world's climate scientists are not acting in concert, they just all happen to be producing the same false data year after year after year.

Your ok with massive upward adjustments each year and you dont question it..

There are two possible reason for this:

1. Your in collusion with the lie and think it will forward your agenda and control of people desire.

2. Your to stupid to see it and a useful idiot..


Note, since you are not a scientist, there is no third point of potentially being correct. Your blind belief precludes this as a possibility and real scientists would question why there have been so many adjustments and why they have all been one direction...

 

[Crick]

A real scientist wouldn't tell the lies you do.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A real scientist wouldn't tell the lies you do.

And just like being unable to support the A in AGW you have no facts here either...

 

[Crick]

I still have AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the thousands of peer reviewed studies and papers on which those reports are based. You've got diddly-squat.