By the way, did anyone else notice that Lindzen didn't even get the caption right on his own Figure 4? Perhaps if there were some form of peer review from those "physicians and surgeons" they might have noticed that. I suspect that approval for the article was rubber-stamped just as soon as they saw the author and the title.
By the way, if people are unfamiliar with the esteemed "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" it was founded with the goal to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine." Along the way articles in the "journal" have also tried to convince us that HIV does not cause AIDS and being gay shortens your life span. Oh, and they're also associated with infamous "Oregon Petition" that is so admired by people without an ounce of integrity.
The Association is a right wing political organization that masquerades as a medical society, clearly the perfect ones to be judging whether climate science has been co-opted.
EDIT: Kano says:
"In fact without the internet and blogs none of us would even know who Lindzen, Spencer or Christy was"
And that would probably be a good thing.
EDIT for Pindar: Your answer is just a lie. If you insist on lying, you should either become more
sophisticated or more incomprehensible, saying something that is obviously a lie is just dumb.
Another EDIT for Pindar and Sagebrush: Its VERY easy to prove that Pindar is lying. Here's a link to the Journal of Climate table of contents for the current issue:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/clim/26/...
Pindar, if you think that climate science is entirely political and not scientific, please demonstrate that for EVERY paper in this journal. I'll be very interested in how you prove that such articles as "Impact of Rossby Wave Breaking on U.S. West Coast Winter Precipitation during ENSO Events" or "Comparing Cyclone Life Cycle Characteristics and Their Interannual Variability in Different Reanalyses" are politics and not science.
If you can't do that, your statement is a blatant lie, which makes you a liar.
After you've finished with that (ha ha!), you can go back through my questions and answers and tell us one of my "lies." You'll notice that MY questions and answers are open for inspection, while yours are kept hidden. I wonder why?
SAGEBRUSH: You don't have to pay to read the titles and abstracts, and you could always get off your rear end and go to a library to read the journal. The point is that these articles are SCIENCE and they have nothing to do with POLITICS and so Pindar is LYING. (Of course you're a proven liar too.)
If our planet gets colder, it will be bad for us, millions will suffer, however it is what I hope happens just so everyone can realize what a debacle this global warming/climate change is, how it has been co-opted by different groups for their own personal advantages, and how there has been so much propaganda/brainwashing with almost total (until now anyway) suppression of conflicting evidence/discussion, with politics and media completely denying any right of reply.
In fact without the internet and blogs none of us would even know who Lindzen, Spencer or Christy was.
Actually the situation must be changing, because I doubt it would have been possible to get this article published a few years ago.
Well let's see!!!! Lindzen is a diehard denier, associated with the cato Institute, which is another think tank supported by big oil. That in itself makes his opinion decidedly political on the side of big oil against the truth of AGW
He is a doctor of mathematics and not trained to be a climatologist. In other words, he is a big oil supporter and big oil and coal have been the recipients of more political advantage and subsidies and investor tax breaks than any one industry besides tobacco. Just another useless denier spreading lies on behalf of big oil. Shooting is too good for him and his followers
**** so did you alert all the deniers about this post. I spoke the truth and got 8 thumbs down.
I wouldn't be surprised, politicians make any excuse to make a new tax. It isn't even concrete evidence than CO2 increases temperature. How do they even know the temperature hundreds of thousands of years ago? They just measure the CO2 concentration within air pockets of ice cores correct? Although other factors which influence temperature (e.g. Altitude) also change over time, thus how accurate can predictions be?
Yes , You have Micheal Mann and Helen Cullen on Ajazzera TV making claims
that some storms were caused by global warming . They had no proof .
Then Sheldon Whitehose (D) senator making all sorts of claims .
Al Sharpton Climate Scientist says the same things .
Ed Markey wants to base legislation on Climate models that never come true .
Lindzen seems to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this one. This group is pretty much equal in craziness as the entire Monckton charade has been. Regardless I will answer your question.
Yes, I think climate science has been used to push political extremes on both sides. It has occurred with virtually every other science in existence. Why would climatology be left out? If people are aware of something they will put their money into it as well as and politics. This is no different from anything else. You have to pick your sources. sources with large scientific credentials, such as university sites or government sites, have quite a lot more going for them than things such as the OISM project and their various other associated 'anti-socialist' groups.
Sagebrush: You are far from a true scientist. You have said before that God controls the temperature. You put your bible ahead of scientific data. You ignore any form of real data that does not meet your preconceived notions. you disregard any real source of scientific information and call the data I supply made up or doctored. You think anything that goes against your core beliefs is a left-leaning liberal socialist conspiracy. And you continue to attempt to get underneath other people's skins. I allowed you to do it at one time. Now, though, I refuse to sink to your level. Troll away good sir.
Judging from the answers here, it is the overwhelming opinion of those who have been sold their opinion by politically motivated non-scientists.
Of course, but the issue has to be addressed by both platforms. I don't see it as being a legacy issue with the Republicans. The alternative would be a failed attempt by the Democrats. After all the US is close to being free from oil dependence and its not from renewables. Which I have nothing against by the way. It's just listening to alarmist humdrum about how simple and easy it is to make a transition. Obviously they don't practice applicable physics on any type of engineering level.
I'm not convinced that he intends to convey that the co-opting of climate science is entirely for political reasons. Different groups have different motives, and the political benefits are certainly a part of the whole. Consider:
"Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal."
This aptly describes much of the current state of the debate surrounding CAGW, particularly here on YA. Some groups benefit by acquiring what Nathaniel Brandon calls a 'pseudo-self esteem'; a sense of self-worth based on demonstrated adherence to a socially-acceptable set of values. This may explain why so much of the dialog has descended into the ad hominem. To point out flaws and contradictions within the belief system goes far beyond making the other 'wrong'; it tugs on the bottom card of a house of cards that is the false source of their sense of self. The fear of psychic annihilation is a powerful motivator. Those who threaten it cannot just be disagreed with, they must be 'destroyed'.
I love his realistic approach, "science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry." Can anyone say it isn't?
No wonder the lefties hate him. (I would say lefties and greenies, but that would be redundant.)
Jeff M:
1. That is a lame excuse for doing something. (Everybody does it.) So it gives you carte blanc to foist distorted graphs and opinions on others, because everyone does it?
2. What political agenda have I or other true scientists on this site pushed for? We have asked for politics to stay out of it. Politicians have proven inept at solving any crises, but more than genius at creating them. And as Lindzen points out, there are willing scientists, eager to cast their integrity out the window for 15 minutes of fame or, as in James Hansen's case, hard cash.
Baccy Baby: As long as you are bringing up the defining issue, why don't you 'saviors of the earth' define Climate Change. (Other than the UN-IPCC's, "Climate Change is a change in climate.")
In the article, in the pictorial it states that scientists make 'meaningless or ambiguous' claims. How much more ambiguous can you get than 'Climate Change'? That is as ambiguous as anyone can get. But it sure fools the idiots.
Your response just gives more credence to what Lindzen says.
Peggy: Calling Pindar a liar is not following the rules of Y!A. (especially without proof.) (Of course, you are one of the protected species of Y!A. So it would do no good to complain.)
Secondly, your response clearly shows that you have no scientific background and should stay off this site, unless you confess that you really are a lay person.
Dork: If you don't have anything scientific to say, just start your character assassination routine. Ha! Ha! You are so visible.
Jeff M: Yes I do put God in front of scientific data. Especially since the earth has cooled for over a decade, and many of these 'scientists' don't even know it. Many of them are out looking for some missing heat. Ha! Ha! Our Creator knows everything down to the hairs on our head, and yet fools are looking for missing links and heat because of unproven man made theories. Man has theories about how things happen, our Creator MADE them happen. Who do you think I am going to listen to? You? Or the one who has proven his knowledge? You who can only come up with corrupt charts, or one who has proven that he can flood the earth when he wanted to? Does any scientist or group of scientists today have such power?
He has proven what the earth can do. Man in all his wisdom can't even make a computer model to match the earth. So which one would a smart person believe, data that has proven insufficient, or the proven seasons and other proven works of our heavenly creator.
Jeff M: There is an old saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." According to you 'data' the earth's temperature corresponds to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to this Earth, which God created, the temperature has gone down, even you are looking for the missing heat, yet the CO2 level has gone up. Even a foolish person could see which one to trust in.
Peggy: Ha! Ha! That link you provided requires you to PAY. And yet you challenge us to reply to every paper? Ha! Ha! As for me, I am not on the gravy train that you obviously are on and cannot afford it. You are a cheap shot artist!
Ha! Ha! Just look at Peggy. He wants us to determine his side of the issue by just looking at titles. Now how is that for science? He is worse than a cheap shot artist.
Dr. Lindzen with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has come out with what I find to be a very interesting and inforamtive article. He likens the current political environment around Climate Science to the eugenics and Lysenkoism.
In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.
http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf
So, do you beleive as Lindzen does, that Climate Scinece has been coopted for political reasons?
Of course climate science (aka climate alarmism) has been and is being exploited by politicians.
Do you believe for one moment that the $$Billions of taxpayer dollars doled out to climate 'scientists' and universities by our illustrious politicians for 'unbiased' research comes without strings attached?
Politicians are 'investing' these $$Billions with the expectation that down the road they will be able to justify some sort of carbon tax scheme that would ultimately bring $$Trillions into government coffers. $$Trillions that would go to further their partisan agendas and to buy votes, with the outcome of higher prices for everything that the government determines to be involved with Evil CO2.
Many....though not the majority of scientists..... have opted to jump on the taxpayer-provided gravy train by providing 'made-to-order' research results for the politicians and, unfortunately, have disgraced themselves and their professions.
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get prizes and accolades for bringing this up. (tic)
This statement in the beginning makes perfect sense, "... This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely, science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former. ..."
When there is a 7x difference in climate sensitivity assessments between "skeptics" and AGW proponents, then there is clearly another motivational factor. It would be nice if they could debate the sensitivity issue and stick to that.
7x? That's quite a difference! (Alarmist's climate sensitivity factor - 0.81 __ Skeptic's climate sensitivity factor - 0.11)
<<
The evidence for this is far greater than the evidence we have significantly affected the climate. I don't even like to say I believe in evolution even though it is obviously the one of the most proved theories in the history of science. It seems almost equally obvious to me that politics dominates the discussion of climate science and many of those with a leftist agenda are obviously biased by their politics and have seemed to manage to dupe themselves into believing it is about science.
Some good quotes from the article.
science becomes a source of authority rather
than a mode of inquiry.
For science to be politically useful, several features are
involved:
?Powerful advocacy groups claiming to represent both
science and the public in the name of morality and superior
wisdom;
?Simplistic depictions of the underlying science so as to
facilitate widespread “understanding”;
?“Events,” real or contrived, interpreted in such a manner as
to promote a sense of urgency in the public at large;
?Scientists flattered by public attention (including financial
support) and deferent to “political will” and popular
assessment of virtue; and
?Significant numbers of scientists eager to produce the
science demanded by the “public.”
Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and
it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been
damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even
theory to accommodate politically correct positions.How can
one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed
science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic
public policy
Edit:
Actually GCNP, it was Republicans in Congress, not skeptics, who are proposing those changes. Why should Republicans support science projects to push leftist agendas. I for one wouldn't call Republicans conservatives but most conservatives are left with nowhere else to go but the Republican Party.
Hmm the the rabbit hole goes deeper young Alice.
"the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" share an address with the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness who also share the same address with the OISM, (maker of the phony petition)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association...
Somehow I find it difficult to see how anyone who claims to be a 'skeptic' would be sucked in by these obviously fraudulent groups, unless they wanted to be.
As always laughable
P.S. Who is the rather obvious troll voting for deniers answers supposed to fool, certainly nobody who has watched deniers do this over some period of time, the fact deniers can only do this rather than actually address valid points is far more telling to me.
No, I do not. Any scientific theory must be able to stand up to vigorous peer reviewed studies. There are scientist that would like to show the flaws in any scientific theory. Until a scientific theory is introduced that would better explain the observations being made then the theory that best explains the observations will remain the dominant scientific theory of the observations. There are no competing theories to the AGWT that would better explain the observations being made. No other competing scientific theory even come close to threatening the AGWT as a theory that better explains the observations being made. None!
So, how did the AGWT become so politicized? Trust me, it was not the climate scientist turning all political and with an agenda to invent a theory that would allow them to control mankind. Large and heavily invested interests wanted to politicize this for they know that any actions taken towards mitigation must be done on a national and world level to have any real effect. These interests do not need all of the world governments to prevent meaningful moves towards key mitigation efforts. They only needed a few, influential governments to halt any efforts towards any mitigation efforts. In walks the U.S. government. All these interests had to do was to spread enough lies and to create enough doubt concerning the AGWT in order to get enough ignorant people and ignorant "well fed" politicians on their side and they would be able to block any of the world efforts towards mitigation. You want to see who politicized the science behind the AGWT? Who has the most to lose through mitigation efforts? Serious money and not just the chump change. Some of the world's wealthiest companies have highly vested interests in stopping any mitigation efforts.
Ya'know Engr, this kind of question sounds really paranoid...until you read history books, even our own.
How much do you think The Heartland Institute paid Lindzen to write that?
Now in terms of Lysenkoism, which is performing research to support political objectives, have you seen this?
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/04/u.s.-...
Oddly, it is a climate skeptic proposing this change. Now why would a climate skeptic want to do away with peer review and replace it with politically driven objectives?
Hmmmmm. Makes you wonder who really is pushing Lysenkoism. Or it does me. Maybe not you. Objectivity and Freudian projection is a ***** that way.
Climate Science is 100% political and zero percent science.
Edit for pegminer. how amusing that some one who does nothing but lie should have the gaul to call my truths lies and how equally amusing that a blatant political activist like yourself can't even admit what they are [ another lie ].
If it makes it easier for you, I can drop down to your playground level and just say
'liar liar your *** is on fire'
Define your terms. What do you mean by "co-opted" and what to you mean "political reasons".
Linzen is apparently complaining that society has to make decisions based on science. This is true. In democracies, we have political processes to make public decisions. What is the gripe with that? He is calling on people to do absolutely nothing, regardless of what the science says. Bizarre.
Are scientists co-opted? I don't think so. When I look at scientific studies I see the conclusions carefully and narrowly expressed. At some point, the public and politicians need somebody to roll-up all of these narrow findings and explain what they mean in terms of future risks. In the U.S, we have the National Science Academy specifically to do that: to advise the nation what the science says. In the U.K. it is the Royal Society, in Canada the RS of Canada etc. Internationally for climate change specifically, that is the role of the IPCC. These are scientists, digesting the science and expressing to policy makers what the risks are. There have been some scientist that have taken on more of an advocacy role, only because the issue of climate change was ignored for so long, perhaps too long. How many people in the world were even aware of it 50 years after the first paper concluding it was happening? It was seriously ignored for 50 years until the movie An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. Linzen seems to be saying that the public should go on ignoring it, that science should only be talked-about by scientist and never should it be used to make public decisions. Think about how bizarre that is.
Linzen has been miffed at the science community since the NAS declined his paper on his Iris Theory. He was allowed to choose his own reviewers and even they said the paper had problems and was not high enough quality for the journal, PNAS. Linzen published it in a journal with lower standards and it was largely ignored because of the unanswered problems raised by reviewers. For that, he claims that he was black-balled for his minority opinions, that even his friends are against him. He was prominent in climatology a decade ago but is now generally ignored because he doesn't make sense. He makes no sense to climatologists and now in this paper he makes no sense to members of an active democracy.
His calling for science to remain in a vault and never brought to public decision-making is rather silly.
most of it, no. In fact most climatologists are surprised at the attention. Few scientists get picked on. When was the last time you hear what a particle physicist did?
Yes, and Lindzen himself is Exhibit A.
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindze...
"Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998...Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services...
Lindzen is a signatory to the Heidelberg Appeal. Dr. Fred Singer and the International Centre for Scientific Ecology consented to the tobacco giant Philip Morris' use of the Heidelberg Appeal to draw support to its European branch of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)―TASSC Europe. TASSC was Philip Morris's front group initiated to question the science that showed the devastating effects of smoking on the human body...
Lindzen is a signatory to the Oregon Petition, a controversial document first circulated in 1998 with an article that appeared to be a reprint of a National Academy of Science peer-reviewed article. The National Academy of Science has stated that it is not connected in any way with the Oregon Petition...
Lindzen was a signatory to the 2005 Leipzig Declaration penned by prominent climate-change denier Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). SEPP has received at least $20,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998...
Lindzen was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Sponsors of the 2009 conference have collectively received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations...
Lindzen is a signatory to an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming"...the list of signatories only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. Also, almost half have received funding from oil companies and big industry."
Lindzen is an accomplished scientist, but his claims, though much cleverer than those of the army of denier clowns spawned by his endless mischief, do not stand up to a century of solid science endorsed by hundreds of Nobel Prize winning scientists:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
