But, it is hard to know if anything in the article in true after this comment by the author:
>>... "believe" in the existence of anthropogenic global warming without feeling the urge to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages...This is – and always has been – the position of all the climate sceptics I've ever met.<<
If there is a bigger lie in all of Denier-liar-dom, I cannnot think of what it might be.
As for Lindzen, the following comments portray a person who is out of touch with reality - not just science.
>>Lindzen maintained that this proves nothing other than that temperatures at the end of a warming period are almost inevitably going to be higher than those in the beginning or middle.<<
Since there is no history of anthropogenic warm periods on which to base such general observations, this makes no sense.
>>"Other than that there is so much penalty for saying that this is not an important problem that I don't think people would go out on that limb, either."<<
It's as if Lindzen has lost touch with the entire science profession.
>>"I've asked very frequently at universities: 'Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate [...or meteorology or oceanography...]?' And the answer is usually 'No one.'"<<
>>"You look at the credentials of some of these people [on the IPCC] and you realise that the world doesn't have that many experts, that many 'leading climate scientists'".<<
The ignorance of these statements is mind-boggling - as if Lindzen is senile and without a clue about the IPCC or anything else.
No - neither did he rule it out explicitly.
He was saying that people who nowadays studied climatology or related subjects were not the brightest. He claimed that the brighter ones studied physics, maths and then chemistry. He also suggested that the very brightest probably chose business or law.
He was amplifying a point made by Donna Laframboise about IPCC scientists. Because of the UN nature of the organisation, scientists were required from all countries and, as many scientists who had participated in the process once were unwilling to do so again, it created problems in trying to find a succession of top rate scientists from certain countries. They simply did not exist. Feedback from the IAC survey had this as a quote:
"There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter...we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent."
There are other anomalies as well. For instance, there has been an IPCC Lead Author who assumed that role six years before completing his PhD. Another Lead Author had not completed his Masters. On the other hand, an atmospheric science professor with 50 years experience of meteorology and climate prediction had never been asked to participate. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman since 2002, tells us that their scientists are the "crème de la crème".
go Wikipedia and find more
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Lindzen" redirects here. For the Swedish water polo player, see Tore Lindzén.
Richard S. Lindzen
Born 8 February 1940 (age 73)
Webster, Massachusetts
Residence United States
Nationality American
Fields Atmospheric physics
Institutions Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alma mater Harvard University
Thesis Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics (1965)
Doctoral advisor Richard M. Goody
Notable students Siu-shung Hong, John Boyd, Edwin K. Schneider, Jeffrey M. Forbes, Ka-Kit Tung, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, Christopher Snyder, Gerard Roe
Known for Dynamic Meteorology, Atmospheric tides, Ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial oscillation, Iris hypothesis
Notable awards NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967), AMS Meisinger Award (1968), AGU Macelwane Award (1969), Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970), AMS Charney Award (1985), Member of the NAS
Spouse Nadine Lindzen
Children Two sons[1]
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983,[1] until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism.[4
Paul Crutzen came to chemistry by way of climate science, mathematical modelling of meteorology to boot. But perhaps Lindzen's deep insights enable him to identify Crutzen as second-rate.
When Richard Lindzen, went to college there was no Climatology as we know it. That came about AFTER his time. The same is true about James Hansen and his mentor Van Allen. Also the Wright Brothers did not have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering.
All Lindzen is saying is that, real scientists go for Physics and Chemistry or the like. They go for REAL sciences, not Communism 101, which you seem to be so experienced in.
Don't you wish you were as knowledgeable as Lindzen? Your envy is showing.
I guess so... right along with all the rest of you second raters populating the "climate sciences."
"Oh yeah," said Lindzen. "I don't think there's any question that the brightest minds went into physics, math, chemistry…"
Well I will say anyone who links to Lindzen is definitely second rate. Does that ring a bell Cy
Ya. But it was a means to an end.
This guy is far from being second rate as well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Som...
Cyclops (who blocks all but his buddies from answering his questions) has an interesting question where Richard Lindzen finally admitted that he was a second-rate scientist.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140201184046AAfSpUk
Lindzen apparently tries to drag everyone else down with him, but can anyone really look at people like John Von Neumann and Edward Lorenz and think that those guys were second-rate?
