Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sundubuman]

in the name of "science" and the emerging religion of "GlobalWarming"

Worthy of a Totalitarian State
.

02 Feb 07 - "Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on global warming don't embrace this role. They cringe at the thought of disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled, they do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus. Dr. Richard Lindzen is an exception.

"Dr. Lindzen is one of the original deniers -- among the first to criticize the scientific bureaucracy, and scientists themselves, for claims about global warming that he views as unfounded and alarmist.


... His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however, much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global warming as an issue of paramount importance.

... Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: "throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."

... Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. As Lindzen wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, "there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books.

[sundubuman]

wake up kids.....

[enns]

No matter how many top experts in the world question this theory, the GW crowd will not listen. It's gotten beyond strange, it's an afront to science.

[cbclark4]

Will the Mastodons return in the next Ice Age?

I like Mastodons, they look like fun.

Will I still have to wear sunscreen?

[wannago]

[cbclark4]

Who needs science when you have popular opinion.

The only problem I have with the GW crowd is that they have become as close minded as some religions.

[khyber]

I found this article regarding Liezen.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

I don't agree with the tactics some GWs have taken regarding the besmerching of character but it IS important that other scientists are aware of biases so that they can approach research with a more skeptical view.

If the science is unsound then it should be disproven and the debate should move on. But all voices should be heard.

Could you point out a source for your OP sun?

[cbclark4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21