Lindzen againzen

Rebuttal ad nauseum

Posted by David Roberts at 10:46 AM on 18 Apr 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism | lying liars

I'm not sure there's much value left in rebutting Dick Lindzen's schtick every time it pops up. He keeps saying the same stuff, so the rebuttals keep saying the same stuff, and at this point anyone interested in the schtick or the rebuttal has a panoply of sources close at hand.

Nonetheless, Newsweek's egregious bad judgment means that millions of new people are being exposed to the schtick, so, therefore and forthwith: the rebuttal, again, from RealClimate. Spread it around.

This bit, which Kit also noticed, is worth repeating:

Finally, we find it curious that Lindzen chose to include this very lawyerly disclaimer at the end of the piece:
[Lindzen's] research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Richard, one thinks thou doth protest too much! A casual reader would be led to infer that Lindzen has received no industry money for his services. But that would be wrong. He has in fact received a pretty penny from industry. But this isn't for research. Rather it is for his faithful advocacy of a fossil fuel industry-friendly point of view. So Lindzen's claim is true, on a technicality. But while the reader is led to believe that there is no conflict of interest at work behind Lindzen's writings, just the opposite is the case.

For story: Lindzen againzen
9 Comments | Post a Comment

Fossil gossip

Pray tell,why must you infer that anyone who says that global warming is not sourced in the C02 emissions,but placed by the cyclical perturbations of our sun being effected by those periodical energetic anomalies(Which actually are not so anomalous) must be on the side of the petroleum companies.I understand you may be having an emotional outburst from your anger over the economic impact of fuel prices,but dont let that cloud the real science of our weather and magma effects that are not the human beings on this planets fault,not even a little bit. We definitely need to reduce our emissions for our health and our earths health,but stopping all emissions from human use completely just simply wont change the near future as we experience this anomalous period which ebbs after the period known as the Mayan calendar,where the Mayan folks,along with others tracked these periodic anomalies and sourced their calendar to the timings.Just as simple as that.Relax some and enjoy the ride and be aware of the ramifications of severe weather,as it will get much worse as it ebbs and flows through our sector of the universe.

Earth Shaman

by Earth Shaman at 11:15 AM on 18 Apr 2007

File under fossil energy whore

Lindzen is despicable

Benny Big Eye

by Benny Big Eye at 11:40 AM on 18 Apr 2007

Despicableness

My,My Are you sure Mr Benny? Or are you paraphrasing cuz your pineal gland is infused with flouride.Ya know a proper commentary(which Im sure mine at this stage of bipp isnt)Would be nice as name calling without proper critiqueing is just so boring and denotes your inability to process.

Earth Shaman

by Earth Shaman at 1:11 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Earth to Shaman

Mr. Shaman,

Forgive me, I'll be brief here as I need to get back to work.

While it certainly is possible that solar activity may be repsonsible for a percentage in the global rise in temps over the past 30 years, it is implausible that solar activity alone could account for the most extraordinary rise in temps the world has ever seen (when I say this, I mean biggest increase in temps in such a short period of time. I'm sure this is a statistical term for what I'm referring to, I just can't think of it off hand).

This same rise in temps over the past 30 years has coincided with a huge increase in carbon and other GHG's in the global atmosphere, in part fueled by globalization and the exploding economies of India and China, as well as other factors.

No natural phenomena in history can explain what has ocurred since the 70's. Certainly, enhanced solar activity and other natural processes may be exacerbating the problem, but it is wishful thinking to imply that anthropogenic warming is not the main driver of the problem.

I appeal to your senses that all successful organizations and organisms employ various forms of risk management. At a minimum, we must deploy mitigation strategies immediately. If all us hippies are wrong, we can go back to business as usual. But we must plan for unfortunate outcomes now, or else we will be completely unprepared for negative consequences.

by VTpowderhound at 1:29 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Shaman to Neophyte

Senor VT powederhound. May I suggest that you peruse my commentary in the Gristmill Blog section with the headline:The chasm between our agenda and climate science.The problem statement. I am an earth scientist and am bigger than those climate scientists,so I get my way with earth science,I assure you.But I do enjoy a spirited discussion of earth science issues,so please read my offering in the aforementioned blog and feel free to ask questions of this old man. Ta

Earth Shaman

by Earth Shaman at 3:35 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Earth Shaman

troll....tiresome.

Benny Big Eye

by Benny Big Eye at 6:16 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Dump the Chump?

Hey it's up to you two twits ... I got real thinkin' to do.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 8:38 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Im So tiresome,but accurate

I know Mr. Benny that you have an emotional connection with your paradigm,just as I do.But cant you at least establish a process wherein you contribute to the process instead of just throwing stones,or are you just a young man without the restraint that a proper papa would teach you.Ya see ,I at least in my trolliness,give you a few moments to assure you that you are being heard,but my mama always taught me to be seen and not heard so much until I passed high school at least.

Earth Shaman

by Earth Shaman at 1:12 AM on 19 Apr 2007

Excellent title ...

David ...

Great title. And, thank you for bringing attention to RealClimate's discussion of Lindzen's oped.

I tend to think that, as painful as it is, we cannot let stand a denialist's arguments, especially when it is as prominent as in Newsweek.

In that vein, my shot at decontructing this Lindzen piece was "J'Accuse: Newsweek harbors Global Warming Deniers" (http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/jaccuse-newsweek-harbo ...). (PS: And, that was sparked by Kit Stolz's post "Newsweek blesses Richard Lindzen, ignores pay-offs from fuel companies" (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/13/114644/561).

What is interesting is that Lindzen is no longer simply raising questins and being misleading, but moving to direct falsehoods. For example,

" There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way ..."

Well, there is evidence. Lindzen might want to contest it, but there is evidence. See, for example: Science Daily's video "Harder Rain, More Snow: Meteorologists See Future of Increasingly Extreme Weather Events." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006-02-05/)

Sadly, I don't expect Newsweek to publish any form of corrective material. Just as they let Fareed Zakaria's errors re US energy use (and therefore, false conclusions about importance of energy efficiency) to pass through without correction. (http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/fareed-zakaria-wrong-f ...)

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!! to Energize America .

by A Siegel at 10:46 AM on 19 Apr 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.