http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/webextras/richardlindzen_transcript.pdf&ei=N3khVKXRFY-syASWkIGgAg&usg=AFQjCNEAs-0pbFy4zCoD4ZY7o3T098VkMQ Dick Lindzen was a lead author on the previous IPCC report.
The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."[67] A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is."[3] The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[68]
Dick now works for the CATO Institute. They pay better than the IPCC. The Cato Institute is an American libertarianthink tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb Oh yeah, we can trust THIS guy. Total objectivity here. LOL Another whore paraded out by piehole.
In a new movie, Fed Up!, another documentary on the carbohydrate > insulin > fat accumulation process, there is a bit where they show old footage of tobacco industry scientists, testifying before Congress that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer. Of course they show the clip to compare with the sugar lobby efforts to say the same kind of thing about soda and the like driving fat accumulation. I expect to hear the artificial sugar industry to be doing the same soon, per the new research on those sweeteners and the link to gut bacteria.
Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University: 'Obama has long been delusional on this issue. Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.' Rossiter on his conversion to a climate skeptic: 'You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis...I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party.' Rossiter on Gore's film: 'I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don't do science. Gore’s irresponsible.' On Gore winning the Nobel: 'Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger.' Rossiter: 'My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.'
Odumbo REAL objective... take money from American citizens and give to others. Global Warming is just his misdirect.
maybe I'm a little slow witted. Watching an interview like this on tv I would miss half of it and my mind would wander. But reading it really slow was great. I could go to the bathroom, grab a beer, check my positions and stay right with it. I took a creative writing class in college and was always getting nailed for writing like people talk. Reading an interview where people use words like "yeah" makes it kind of come alive. otherwise, my guess is your interest is not so much in the science but the alarmist aspect of the science. Do you have any old interviews in your files going back to the Hitler years debating the science of the Jews threat of destroying the German economy?
I'd rather read the record of an interview myself. And no, I don't have any old interviews going back to the Hitler years. But on that note Lindzen, elsewhere, has compared the science of the climate alarmists to the Eugenics movement in the 1920's and to the Lysenko affair in the Soviet Union. He uses these as examples of how science was successfully coopted for a time and used as source of authority rather than as a mode of inquiry. He sees parallels with the politicization of climate science today. I think he makes some very good points. What do you think?
the Soviets used Lysenko, Hitler used Eugenics and today's big govt loving leftist / pre-fascists are doing the same thing. it amuses me to see how well you put that together piezoe. Its great to kick that big govt drone yoke - see clearly and not have to think like a leftist isn't it. maybe you are on the road to going back to being an anti big govt / anti crony old school classical liberal ( modern day libertarian / individual and state's right person ) after all.