Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've met him multiple times professionally. He's still got his endowed position at MIT. He's still included in the IPCC work. I don't see anybody retaliating.
He's damaged his reputation with his peers due to his strident politicization of the disagreements he has had with them on the IPCC work. I can't imagine as many want to co-author work with him as in the past. That's not retailiation; that is Lindzen damaging his own standing in the community.
Whether intentional or not, you are not listening. You state in your first paragraph that you "Don't see anybody retaliating" against Richard while initiating your very next paragraph describing how he has "damaged his reputation". Rather astounding contradictions contained within the short space of your arguement.
Richard Lindzen has a body of work and accolades aplenty that will allow him to weather the storm of attack that he is facing. (Simply do a bit of research and evidence of those attacks are made apparent - or, if possible, ask Richard himself.) What he is doing - has been doing now in earnest for a number of years, is speaking out to those in the scientific community without the far-reaching reputations that afford them protection in speaking out against the far-reaching scientific theories utilized to prop up the GW agenda. Read his work on the subject - he speaks to first hand knowledge of scientists facing intimidation and attack if they speak out against GW.
If you have had the good fortune of meeting Richard first hand, then please request of him just a brief amount of time to discuss these issues in person. The experience can do nothing but offer you a much needed insight into the realities of global warming politics.
Lastly - despite angering some of his peers whose GW supporting grant monies are endangered by sharing the truth regarding the wobbly-table science GW is based upon, there are many in the scientific community, both active and retired, who would love to co-author a paper with Lindzen.
Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily but not dramatically, with over 35 reactors under construction in 12 countries. Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though plans are firming for new units in Europe, the USA and Russia. Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly
Yes, the technological advances of American nuclear energy production have been impressive over the last decade.
Combine this technology with about 30 new plants, and America is well on its way to much-improved energy independence.
No, I am simply attempting to give you facts supporting the reality that the debate within the scientific community is far from settled.
Dissenters to an opposing view on GW refuse to look at these facts, discredit them without even studying them.
One cannot claim to support science and fact while continually denying science and fact.
If more were willing to seek out truth, there would be much less deception so easily passed on to the masses via government, the education establishment, etc.
I don't wish to demean your own "credentials" as it were, as you appear somewhat sensitive to that subject. You rightfully feel pride in your own personal accomplishments to make a living.
That being said, my own direct experience within the world of academia is...considerable, with a number more years in the private sector. I have witnessed, and experienced first hand, the overtly political nature of the academic world. The Global Warming junta emerged full force just as my own career in academics was well established, and I have watched it inflict great damage upon the field of science and the entire concept of critical thinking. I have been privy to first hand accounts and frustrations by scientists who questioned the motivations behind the Global Warming machinery. Richard Lindzen's own frustrations are representative of so many who have undergone similar struggles. His has been a much needed voice of reason within the din of scientific malpractice.
I also know first hand of those within the business industry who were pushing the Global Warming hysteria about 10 years ago, channeling funding into collegiate departments to help increase the hysteria. One such entity was Enron - do some searching and you should find information laying that out.
Nobody likes to made a fool -and if you have unwaveringly followed the mainstream media's often pedantic rantings regarding Global Warming and the need to alter the Western World's lifestyle in order to combat its fabricated dangers, then you have been such a victim.
But a former fool need not be a perpetual one. We all must learn from our mistakes, and take that knowlege forward to hopefully be more wary of jumping on any band wagon being propelled by unknown means.
Seek the truth - it is there waiting to be discovered.
Quote:
I am simply attempting to give you facts supporting the reality that the debate within the scientific community is far from settled.
I'm glad you've reached you own opinion on it. I've reached mine too. It appears settled to me. That's OK. That's why the Good Lord gave us each a brain to use as we think best.
Quote:
Dissenters to an opposing view on GW refuse to look at these facts, discredit them without even studying them.
I'm not so much a dissenter as just indifferent to it. You really can't avoid people wanting to explain that crap to you any more, like the Hare Krisna's used to be, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or something. They infest every area on the internet set aside for discussion of Global warming and block every discussion that gets started just so they can endlessly repeat how they don't believe in it and recite yet again their list of the top ten reasons not to believe in Global warming.
Quote:
One cannot claim to support science and fact while continually denying science and fact.
This is like what? SemiahmooDude's Third Law of Narcissism?
Quote:
If more were willing to seek out truth, there would be much less deception so easily passed on to the masses via government, the education establishment, etc.
I see now, the "Hypercompetence of Government", cornerstone of any good Conspiracy Theorist. The Government is out there tricking people into believing Global Warming is a hoax when it doesn't have a Moon Landing to fake, a World Trade Center to blow up, or a flying saucer to hide. OIC.
Quote:
I don't wish to demean your own "credentials" as it were, as you appear somewhat sensitive to that subject. You rightfully feel pride in your own personal accomplishments to make a living.
If I were "sensitive" would I include them in my profile rather than hide them as you do yours? Maybe that's just the difference in the way we think. The fact is, it's somewhat of a miracle that I have been able to obtain any education at all, and even more remarkable that I am alive at all. Those things aren't so much sources of pride to me as they are blessings. You say evasive things like
Quote:
"my own direct experience within the world of academia is...considerable"
and
Quote:
"a number more years in the private sector"
and
Quote:
"I have witnessed, and experienced first hand"
and of course
Quote:
"I have been privy to first hand accounts and frustrations"
As awe inspiring as all that is, my question remains, does it translate to a PhD, a GED, or what? If
Quote:
" your direct experience within the world of academia "
is as Dean of the Science Department and not say, the janitor, why would you be so evasive about admitting it? On the other hand there's a gal on here who lists her education as "advanced" but also declines to say whether that means degrees, home schooling, or what.
Quote:
Nobody likes to made a fool -and if you have unwaveringly followed the mainstream media's often pedantic rantings regarding Global Warming and the need to alter the Western World's lifestyle in order to combat its fabricated dangers, then you have been such a victim. But a former fool need not be a perpetual one. We all must learn from our mistakes, and take that knowlege forward to hopefully be more wary of jumping on any band wagon being propelled by unknown means.
Evidently we have here SemiahmooDude's Second Law of Narcissism.
Quote:
Seek the truth - it is there waiting to be discovered.
And where there's a Second and a Third Law, a First Law is almost predictable, and here we have it, just as Obe Won Kenobe would have predicted.
Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily but not dramatically, with over 35 reactors under construction in 12 countries.
Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though plans are firming for new units in Europe, the USA and Russia.
Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly
There are applications for six units in three locations for Texas (two units per location that is.)
Also, I seem to remember reading or hearing on the news that France is overhauling every nuclear plant they have.
There are applications for six units in three locations for Texas (two units per location that is.)
Also, I seem to remember reading or hearing on the news that France is overhauling every nuclear plant they have.
That's right. They've all reached their design lifetime. They can choose to bear the large cost of building new ones while bearing the large cost of decommissioning the old ones, or take on the increasing costs associated with operating beyond the design lifetime.
And a bit of visual exploration of the ongoing debate on Global Warming ladies and gentlemen...
P.S. - I miss Mr. Chrichton's ability to both cut to the chase of an issue, while remaining quite engaging while doing so. He is sorely missed.
It is my hope that IQ2 garners even more recognition for its fantastic debates. For those unfamiliar with the program, you should look it up. The facility at Caspery is a perfect environment for the format. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Chrichton at this very event. I admitted to him I had never read any of his books but enjoyed the film versions. (winking while I said so) He cocked his head to the side, frowned just a bit, then stated, "Well, the film versions certainly paid out better!" He was truly a gentleman with an obvious appetite for knowledge, and in a room full of PhD's, easily held his own.
This is followed by a clip from the Charlie Rose show. Chrichton's own path to disputing the GW hysteria is similar to my own. His firm belief that the sun is the primary factor in earth's warming and cooling trends (imagine that!) is being proven correct by the most recent data - though to be fair, Michael was simply following the lead of a number of well qualified scientists who had for some time felt the same way. The importance there is that Chrichton took the time to actually research the issue. He is particularly accurate in the last minute of this clip - much to the agitation of Mr. Rose. (Who I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to meet as I enjoy the wide array of guests his program hosts.)
I had a long discussion with a high school science teacher at a public school district about an hour's drive from my home. This teacher, while a fine person, had almost no intellectual curiosity. It became readily apparent they simply taught from the district textbook, passed out the pre-made worksheets, and regurgitated the PC science talking points. This teacher has been at it for nearly 10 years and chaired the high school science department. When I challenged a statement this teacher had made regarding global warming, they became very defensive, but sadly, their strong held and complete belief in the global warming mantra was based on nothing more than what they had been told, saw on television, or was on the cover of a magazine. (Thankfully no students were there to witness how little this teacher actually knew of their subject, though I fear the administration was not terribly impressed) I was very dissapointed, having been invited there as a guest by the district assessment coordinator to discuss curriculum development, and leaving there quite concerned over the lack of overal quality within the science department. (After my discussion with this teacher, the other educators from the other departments said very, little so I don't know if they shared in the already represented lack of intellectual curiosity) Since that time, I have had others inform me it is much the same at many (perhaps most?) of our schools, including our universities. This troubles me a great deal.
We would all do well to share Mr. Crichton's quest for knowledge and truth - especially those whose careers should involve fostering those very same qualities in our youth.
What is your deal? You talk like you think you're God's Gift to the Civilized World but give absolutely no hint of any qualification or knowledge out of the ordinary. Do you actually know anything about any of this? You interrogate me about my background and credentials..why is it that people like yourself always hide theirs? What in the world is wrong with you?
SemiahmooDude talks like an educated person. Sorry if you find that offensive.
Obviously he knows something about "this.". Hes having no trouble at all making you look like an idiot. References and facts trump your name calling every time.
Can you see your prostate from your vantage point?
SemiahmooDude talks like an educated person. Sorry if you find that offensive.
Obviously he knows something about "this.". Hes having no trouble at all making you look like an idiot. References and facts trump your name calling every time.
Can you see your prostate from your vantage point?
I've been waiting for his references and facts but I haven't seen any so far. Michael Crichton certainly doesn't qualify. I agree he's well-spoken which is certainly a credit to his parents. In the absence of any honesty on his part about who he is to be so outlandishly condescending while presenting only the usual shopworn trite banal nonsense the deniers paper the internet with, I can only guess. So far he's shown himself to be the usual kind of spin doctor, but oilier than most. If I have to guess, his way of showing that he knows the material while not allowing himself to be pinned down on anything outside of his declaratory remarks would be typical of a lobbyist, or an industry advocate of some sort.
If you figure he's making me look like an idiot I'll take that as a compliment coming from you. However, I'll caution you, it isn't that much of an accomplishment. I'll concede the name calling; he's much better at it than I am. With me it's kind of a sideline, mainly used as a "literary device". With him it seems to be the centerpiece. As for the prostate, no I can't see it. Your head seems to be in the way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
