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.
Of course, you failed to do a quick google concerning whether the schools the other people represent get any grant money from the UN and other Algore supported sources. Why don't you do a check about that before going wild again?
Roy... if you have links showing that... why not post them?
A quote from that link:
"Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration."
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
I do find it interesting (and not in a sarcastic way) that anyone who disagrees with global warming would cite a Harvard educated, MIT professor. I'm not a bit suprised that the OP neglected to mention that everyone else who served on the panel with him, found major fault with his views. Or that Lindzen himself had some serious reservations about his hypothesis;
Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fuels lab at Princeton University did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science
Jerry Schneider of Stanford University criticized Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity (the global mean temperature increase associated with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations), arguing that it was too specific given the available evidence.
So, we have one guy out of many who worked on a panel, and his opinions regarding the science and the policy are outside the mainstream of panel members. There may be a valid reason for his "outlier" opinions; In a 1995 Harpers Magazine article it was pointed out (and not denied) that "Lindzen accepts $2500/day in fees for consulting with oil and gas companies, his 1991 trip to testify before congress was paid for by Western Fuels and a major paper he authored denying global warming was underwritten by OPEC."
So, he's being paid for his "unbiased" opinions?
But thanks for at least admitting that sometimes, albeit rarely you admire something said by "them educated pointy headed professor types".
golfgod
Newsflash-
The climate is cooling, not warming. We are in a cooling cycle.
Post again ten years when you are freezing your ass off. I love this climate game. When I was a teenager, we were all going to freeze in the "new ice age". They changed thier mind to global warming. Ten years from now, they will be back to ice age. Don't worry, 20 years after that they will be back to global warming, so don't throw the signs away.
As an alum, I was happily surprised when a few weeks ago a senior M.I.T. professor directed me to major study by a dozen leading experts associated with their Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change that made clear M.I.T. had joined the climate realists.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has just doubled its previous (2003) projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C. Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm. Human civilization as we know it could not survive such warming, such concentrations (see likely impacts here (http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%c2%b0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/ - broken link)).
So, you're right... MIT does have prestige.. and they disagree with Lindzen.
Wow! Think of the advantages. Coke and Pepsi will save a bunch on carbonation.
Again, the climate is now cooling. Post again in ten years and warn us of the ice age, just like they did in the late 1960s and early 1970s. All the climate change talk is just as entertaining as it was then. The funny thing is that is is promoted by the same people who thought that everyone forgot thier first hoax. The thing that is even more funny is that they attributed the new ice age to........................man produced CO2 levels! It is good thing we got that all figured out then, just in case someone tried to pull that hoax in the future. Damn that CO2- it makes things cold, then hot, now cold again. It is a tricky gas and hard to figure out.
Wow! Think of the advantages. Coke and Pepsi will save a bunch on carbonation.
Again, the climate is now cooling. Post again in ten years and warn us of the ice age, just like they did in the late 1960s and early 1970s. All the climate change talk is just as entertaining as it was then. The funny thing is that is is promoted by the same people who thought that everyone forgot thier first hoax. The thing that is even more funny is that they attributed the new ice age to........................man produced CO2 levels! It is good thing we got that all figured out then, just in case someone tried to pull that hoax in the future. Damn that CO2- it makes things cold, then hot, now cold again. It is a tricky gas and hard to figure out.
Worldwide ocean water temperature was the highest ever last June even if surface temperatures weren't the highest ever.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the second warmest on record, behind 2005, 1.12 degrees F (0.62 degree C) above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees F (15.5 degrees C).
Separately, the global ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 1.06 degrees F (0.59 degree C) above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F (16.4 degrees C).
Each hemisphere broke its June record for warmest ocean surface temperature. In the Northern Hemisphere, the warm anomaly of 1.17 degrees F (0.65 degree C) surpassed the previous record of 1.12 degrees F (0.62 degree C), set in 2005. The Southern Hemisphere’s increase of 0.99 degree F (0.55 degree C) exceeded the old record of 0.92 degree F (0.51 degree C), set in 1998.
The global land surface temperature for June 2009 was 1.26 degrees F (0.70 degree C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees F (13.3 degrees C), and ranked as the sixth-warmest June on record."
So, maybe the surface temperature wasn't the highest ever, but it was still ranked sixth highest ever. And water temperature was higher than ever... I think that shows there is still a problem here.
Last edited by Bagger; 08-23-2009 at 02:18 PM..
Reason: The report was produced in July for June statistics.
This guy is always dragged out and put on display by the climate change deniers.
His position has already been disproved. Many times over. Do the research.
There will always be a marginal opinion which denies climate change.
Relying on the opinion of people like this is like saying that despite the fact that 99% of doctors say that smoking gives you lung cancer, I found a few doctors who disagree, so I'm going to keep smoking because that 99% of doctors are just saying what's necessary to get their "grant" money for research.
This guy is always dragged out and put on display by the climate change deniers.
His position has already been disproved. Many times over. Do the research.
There will always be a marginal opinion which denies climate change.
Relying on the opinion of people like this is like saying that despite the fact that 99% of doctors say that smoking gives you lung cancer, I found a few doctors who disagree, so I'm going to keep smoking because that 99% of doctors are just saying what's necessary to get their "grant" money for research.
It is awesome! How can a bunch of drivel like this pseudo-science be accepted by so many people? Answer- they are not scientists and are not trained to evaluate objectively what is good science and what is crap. Little things, like statistics and methods make all the difference in the world.
Again, post again in ten years. You will have to take the side of the "new ice age" at that time. Don't worry, most people forgot the first time you guys were fretting over the new ice age. Just say that you want alternative energy and are willing to lie or do whatever you need to get there. Most people would accept that, but the use of this silly global warming farce is just insulting and drives people away from supporting alternative energy, as they hate being lied to.
I wish I could remain alive and healthy for the next couple of centuries just so I could observe what actually happens. That would be really interesting.
BTW - Why did the climate warm up between 800 and 1200 AD and then cool off so much during the 1200's to the 1500's?
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.
