Global Warming is Political?

[Waffletush]

Found this off Brite Humes site....

Some scientists say the summary of the U.N. climate change report we told you about earlier distorts the actual scientific findings — because of a political agenda. Cybercast News Service cites MIT professor Richard Lindzen — who worked on the last U.N. climate report — as saying the summary is primarily the work of political appointees — not scientists.

Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl says that if an error is found in the summary — the technical report will be "adjusted" for consistency — a practice he calls "scientific misconduct."

And Scientist Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Center says he resigned from the U.N. panel because its statements to the media were "far outside current scientific understandings."

The summary was the work of political appointees, not scientists? Who woulda thunk the UN had a political agenda?

[ECW]

Does he have citations for these statements or is he just blowing more smoke up your wazoo, Brit Hume style?

[Elrathin]

Link Waffle?

[BoogyMan]

I belived the article Hume's site mentions can be found -> here (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070202a.html)

[sbannon]

Lindzen is a paid hitman for oil companies, I expected to hear his name by Monday morning once this report was published.

I bet we'll hear a lot more from these "for sale" so-called scientists, since the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)--ExxonMobil funded thinktank--is openly offering $10,000 for any articles which cast doubt on this latest IPCC report. You got to love science which begins with a conclusion and then pays top dollar for any supporting evidence.

They're like the scientists and doctors the tobacco industry paid to find "no conclusive evidence that smoking was bad for you" in the past. It's sad, but what's worse is that people listen to these pond-scum gun slingers who claim to know better than the majority of experts in a field...just because it's easier to accept their views and do nothing than to accept the truth and have to make changes in our lives.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html)

[BoogyMan]

Where is Lindzen mentioned in that article Scott? I have read Lindzen's commentary since January of 2006 and he has always been pretty consistent. Can you show me that he is a bought off resource?

[sbannon]

Boogy, Lindzen was mentioned in the first commentary Waffletush quoted--post #1 of this thread.

Show that he's a hired gun? Sure:
Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services. His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institute which is also funded by Exxon Mobil.

Link (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm)

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, Lindzen was mentioned in the first commentary Waffletush quoted--post #1 of this thread.


I should have been more clear, I was speaking of the article you posted, not the original post. I am well aware of his stance as listed in Waffle's post.

Show that he's a hired gun? Sure:
Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services. His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institute which is also funded by Exxon Mobil.

Link (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm)


I am asking you to substantiate your claim that his commentary with regard to the Friday report is bought, not that he has in the past worked for oil companies.

[sbannon]

Boogy, I didn't say his commentary on Friday's report was bought. I said "Lindzen is a paid hitman for oil companies, I expected to hear his name by Monday morning once this report was published"--and especially since Exxon Mobile is offering up big $$$ for anyone willing to dispute the report.

1) It's a fact that Lindzen sells his "scientific opinions", and
2) it also seems to be fact that Exxon Mobile is currently buying such opinions

I leave it to everyone to decide for themselves whether the dots connect or not. I didn't connect them. I just think it's only morally right to point out for anyone who may not know, where (and why) some of these refuting opinions to the vast consensus are coming from.

I honestly believe that in 10 or 20 years, we'll all look back through greenhouse gas hazed hindsite and wish we'd been more skeptical of these so-called scientists that the oil industry pays for, just as we do now with the "scientific opinions" on smoking from tobacco paid scientists and doctors in the 70's and 80's. It's tragic to me that we refuse to learn from history, even recent history.

[BoogyMan]

You wouldn't be trying to leave the impression that he WAS bought and paid for though, would you Scott?

[sbannon]

No, my conspiracy theory minded friend :) I was, as I've said, making the case that there's documented reason to be highly skeptical of Lindzen, and others like him who sell their "scientific" opinions. Character and reputation are often all we have to judge an expert's opinion by, and anyone who will tailer their opinion for a buck lacks both.

I don't care if Lindzen has been or will be paid for commenting specifically on this most recent report--the fact that he's sold his opinions and commentary in the past washes him of any credibility with me already.

EDIT TO ADD: As a matter of pure fact, though Boogy, Lindzen has been bought and paid for over and over in his career. I don't need to leave that impression, I provided links to the sources.

[BoogyMan]

Man Scott, you checked your sense of humor at the door today? :(

I still stand firm that you cannot prove him to be dishonest.

[sbannon]

I never said he was dishonest, I said (more accurately implied) that his past actions have left him utterly discreditable. If you would chose to believe the "paid for" opinions of a few who are willing to sell themselves over the researched, peer reviewed and corroborated findings of the vast majority then that is your prerogative.

My sense of humor is intact, did you miss the smiley?

[BoogyMan]

You need a big one like this: [attachment=111]

OR

The Barack Obama version: [attachment=112]