re: MIT scientist Richard Lindzen with best summary of Fear Science ever

quote:

---

Pretty good rebuttal

I'm personally on the fence

---

Seems like if you are a denialist for AGW - it makes it that much more likely you are a tobacco denialist, as well. e.g. Fred Singer.

You're the very definition of ignorant

quote:

---

Jones wrote in an email dated 11/3/2003: I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor, a well-known skeptic in NZ. A CRU person is on the board but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

---

quote:

---

Michael Mann replied: This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that — take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.

---

One of these days you're going to actually make a positive contribution in a thread.

Unfortunately, today is not that day.

Here's more

quote:

---

Lindzen would have us believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are all tossing their ethics aside and falsifying data in order to keep the research money flowing, even though contrarian climate scientists like Lindzen have had no trouble obtaining government research grants. Is this more plausible than the alternative explanation that 97 percent of climate research is correct, and Lindzen, whose claims have consistently been disproved by observational data, is wrong?

In the end, the Weekly Standard piece revisits comparisons between Lindzen and Galileo. There's one major difference between the two: Galileo was right. His positions were based on and supported by scientific evidence, and they withstood scientific scrutiny and the test of time. Other scientists at the time also recognized that Galileo was right. On the contrary, Lindzen is an outlier whose arguments have been disproved time and time again, including about the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Today's conservative media outlets are rarely willing to consider the scenario in which 97 percent of climate scientists and peer-reviewed research are correct. Instead they ridicule mainstream climate scientists and give disproportionate coverage to the few contrarian scientists like Lindzen. Betting our future on the slim chance that Lindzen is right and nearly every other climate expert is wrong, despite Lindzen's terrible climate track record, would be foolhardy – perhaps humanity's greatest risk management failure. Yet by politicizing science through their biased coverage of the subject, conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard have created a poisonous environment in which it's almost impossible for Republican policymakers to approach the issue from any direction other than denial of the problem.

---

I have empathy for today's conservative. How horrible must it be to be so paranoid that he believes the "Main Stream Media", pollsters, Hollywood, 97 prevent of scientists, are all in cahoots to skew polls, elect liberals, brainwash youth, set curriculum at universities and schools, fix elections and pretty much be involved in every conceivable conspiracy theory from birth certificates to shootings at schools and movie theaters? It's really mind boggling how ignorant he is.

global warming = space aliens = hollywood = cause du jour = peta = msnbc = etc...

97% of nuts are nutty

quote:

---

More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.

---

What has he been more wrong about in light of the pause the past 15 years on warming and actual temperature readings following outside of the range provided by leading climate models?

quote:

---

To them, biofuels were the one and only future

---

So they locked themselves into a premise that blinded them to the possibility of other solutions outside of biofuel?

quote:

---

You don't realize that you are just as bad as the crazies you describe. All you do on ehre is bitch about conservatives, while your own side has the shrills on MSNBC, who are endangering my children's future because they cannot accept spending cuts, and actively go on air decrying any and all republican initiatives.

---

here we go again..... Here's another conspiracy and now you're saying I'm part of it! how do you sleep at night believing the monster sleeps under your bed?

quote:

---

You have this warped idea that the republican party that you once so called "supported" has changed. No, it is YOU that have changed. What the hell are you talking about: shootings, hollywood, wtf?

---

um, when I said it's changed, you agreed.

George Bush ran for president and was pro abortion, pro ERA and called supply side economics "voodoo economics". If he did that today, he'd be considered a commie. In 1980, he was nominated as Vice President. And you don't think the party changed?

Reagan advocated ridding the world of nukes. He supported gun control, amnesty for undocumented workers. Could you see Republicans supporting that today? That's when I voted for Reagan and Bush. Now tell me, who has changed?

quote:

---

I see the same shite on the left, except it involves the NRA, the koch brothers, and fox news.

---

link to where I have ever said there's a conspiracy involving those three. Show me the threads I've started. Show me where liberals refute the findings of 97% of scientists. Show me where liberals oppose something on the scale of Evolution, Climate Change, two facts that are basically given today. Show me a scientifically belief that liberals disbelieve.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is that 97% of scientists, even those who have no training in climate or the atmosphere, support climate change because it is simply a liberal cause.

---

You see now you're just out right lying.

There are times when you show a glimmer of intelligence but when your beliefs are questions, you resort to outright lies like this.

It's ok to question your beliefs. It's ok to question your parents. It's ok to be a grown up.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is that 97% of scientists, even those who have no training in climate or the atmosphere, support climate change because it is simply a liberal cause.

---

That's not a fact but simply your opinion. Which means you lied.