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.
Actually, no.... It's Lindzen who has the reputation for being wrong most often....Ask him about tobacco and lung cancer.... 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.
I`m serving you up a nice slow-pitch softball here, so there should be no problem naming at least one climate scientist who has been consistently correct.
I`m serving you up a nice slow-pitch softball here, so there should be no problem naming at least one climate scientist who has been consistently correct.
This is a pretty loaded question.
Obviously no one can ever be 100% correct, but there are honest mistakes, there are things that surprise, and then there are completely absurd, backwards statements like 'the world will be cooler in 20 years', that only really exist to confuse the issue and help right wingers with their propaganda efforts.
But regardless of his scientific credentials, Lindzen currently works for a highly political right wing think tank, founded by the Koch Brothers and funded exclusively by private interests (any guesses on who they might be?). Of course he's going to attack AGW, mock anyone who supports the theory, twist the facts and pretend that they're all hysterical goofballs.
The Dr in the OP's link, Richard Lindzen of MIT, believes that human activity does contribute to climate change. Do you still support him?
"According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]
Well, he does acknowledge that the globe is warming, and that human CO2 emissions are at least partly responsible for this.
That's a lot more than can be said for the average poster in these threads.
Lindzen's opinion of global warming ...."The earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling."
Furthermore, he feels that the issue of global warming is completely political, and that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda. Richard Lindzen | DeSmogBlog
Asked why so many scientist claim they believe in climate change, Lindzen has this to say: “You could be cynical and say, that when the funding goes up by the factor of 10 or 20. That has an influence.”
(It's bad enough that he is constantly wrong, he's also a hypocrite.)
Meanwhile, we know from Harpers that, in 1995, he charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services,” his trip to testify before Senate in 1991 was paid for by Western Fuels, and his speech “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus” was underwritten by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Fact: The 97 percent figure comes from a 2013 study that analyzed 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific paper, and found that 97 percent of these abstracts endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming
To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
It won't matter to democrats. To them, what's been learned cannot be unlearned.
They don't care if the statistics are completely made up. That's why 97% of scientists agree that liberalism is a mental disorder.
I guess I am one of those that cannot 'unlearn' what I was taught in science classes back in the 1960s, about the Greenhouse Effect.
The Greenhouse Effect was first described in 1827 by Jean-Baptiste Fourier. As the decades passed other scientists 'discovered' or refined the theory, including in the 1890s (when one British scientist, whose name I can't recall, said that the Earth would warm to an uncomfortable degree after another 200 years; of course, he was basing his estimate on the usage of coal and such during his day, and he never dreamed of the coming of the automobile).
Indeed, during the 1960s I believe I was told that the 'warming' would not be within my lifetime. Of course, back in those days China was still in the dark ages (technology wise) as was India. I was fortunate to visit Beijing in the fall of 2008 (after they hosted the Olympics), and witnessed one of their appalling pollution events, and also leaned that, in that one city, 1,000 new cars were hitting the road every day.
But, no matter. Rush Limbaugh came out in the 1980s to claim that such science is a fraud, and his dittoheads fell into step. I wonder what would have happened if Rush had said "Global warming will someday be a problem?".
Sure, it's the scientists who are greedy money grabbers. The oil and coal CEOs (like their cousins the tobacco CEOs) have absolutely no vested interest in denying climate change..
Actually, they have a strong interest in climate change. They are investing in alternative energy sources and will make money regardless.
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.
