4 ms·

Header from the author's wikipedia profile: "Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and

Header from the author's wikipedia profile: "Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is 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.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic of global warming[2] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to climate alarmism." Famous scientist and well-known critic of AGW? This is the first I've heard of him...

hga 16y ago
Hmmm ... he's been well known in this field for both of the above since the late '80s, when a friend of mine interviewed him. At the time he effectively said he had been rather naive in the publication of his research (as I recall it was a study going back 200+ years on ship temperature reports, rather important data since the majority of the world is covered by the seas). He had thought that the scientific community was interested in the truth.... His problem was of course that the '80s were the period where the climate alarmists switched from global cooling/new Ice Age to global warming. As I recall his funding sources went poof, fortunately he'd already gotten tenure. Anyway, if you're interested in this topic yet haven't heard of him or, say, "atmospheric physicist" Fred Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer; e.g. he "designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone" (all quotes from Wikipedia)), you might want to expand your sources of information.
- euroclydon 16y ago
  What motivates these global alarmists? And how do they get money by being so shrill? Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most?
  - jdminhbg 16y ago
    "Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most?" You can page back through the last umpteen national election results if you doubt this is true.
  - hga 16y ago
    I don't know, but this specific phenomena goes back to 200 AD (sic), and then you can go back to, oh, the Book of Revelations and so on. There seems to be a strong drive in at least some people towards this sort of thing. Politicians gain power by not "letting a serious crisis go to waste" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow); how real a crisis is irrelevant. Funding naturally follows for those talking up the crisis.
    - billswift 16y ago
      It isn't just the politicians either, where do you think the major environmental organizations get their money? Since the major cleanup during the 1970s, they have invented "crisis" after "crisis" to keep the money coming in. The "ozone hole" and "acid rain" crises were as overblown, running toward outright fraudulent, as the AGW crap.
    - cgranade 16y ago
      This is why you refer to terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, I'm sure.
  - Kadin 16y ago
    > Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most? If you doubt this, I'd like to introduce you to the Department of Homeland Security.
    - hga 16y ago
      Not a good example, unless you don't believe jihadists killed 3,000 on 9/11, aren't trying to get their hands on nuclear warheads, etc. I think we can argue structure (e.g. DHS vs. the old, FBI vs. MI5), means, competence, etc. while still accepting the reality of a threat.
anamax 16y ago
> This is the first I've heard of him What other atmospheric scientists have you heard of and why?
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
I'd heard of him because he'd misinterpreted satellite data that apparently conflicted with the general consensus. I'd assumed that was an honest mistake but it appears that every time one of his theories gets shot down, he just moves on to the next one. The fact that they all seem to have an implicit message of "don't worry about it, everything's fine" is looking less coincidental as time passes.
- BearOfNH 16y ago
  every time one of his theories gets shot down, he just moves on to the next one So ... when faced with facts that contradict his theories, he modifies his theories so as to be consistent with the facts. Isn't this what, you know, a real scientist should do?

hga 16y ago

Hmmm ... he's been well known in this field for both of the above since the late '80s, when a friend of mine interviewed him. At the time he effectively said he had been rather naive in the publication of his research (as I recall it was a study going back 200+ years on ship temperature reports, rather important data since the majority of the world is covered by the seas). He had thought that the scientific community was interested in the truth.... His problem was of course that the '80s were the period where the climate alarmists switched from global cooling/new Ice Age to global warming. As I recall his funding sources went poof, fortunately he'd already gotten tenure. Anyway, if you're interested in this topic yet haven't heard of him or, say, "atmospheric physicist" Fred Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer; e.g. he "designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone" (all quotes from Wikipedia)), you might want to expand your sources of information.

euroclydon 16y ago
What motivates these global alarmists? And how do they get money by being so shrill? Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most?
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  "Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most?" You can page back through the last umpteen national election results if you doubt this is true.
- hga 16y ago
  I don't know, but this specific phenomena goes back to 200 AD (sic), and then you can go back to, oh, the Book of Revelations and so on. There seems to be a strong drive in at least some people towards this sort of thing. Politicians gain power by not "letting a serious crisis go to waste" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow); how real a crisis is irrelevant. Funding naturally follows for those talking up the crisis.
  - billswift 16y ago
    It isn't just the politicians either, where do you think the major environmental organizations get their money? Since the major cleanup during the 1970s, they have invented "crisis" after "crisis" to keep the money coming in. The "ozone hole" and "acid rain" crises were as overblown, running toward outright fraudulent, as the AGW crap.
  - cgranade 16y ago
    This is why you refer to terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, I'm sure.
- Kadin 16y ago
  > Is your average citizen just dying to be worried over the next catastrophe and willing to throw money at whomever can scare them the most? If you doubt this, I'd like to introduce you to the Department of Homeland Security.
  - hga 16y ago
    Not a good example, unless you don't believe jihadists killed 3,000 on 9/11, aren't trying to get their hands on nuclear warheads, etc. I think we can argue structure (e.g. DHS vs. the old, FBI vs. MI5), means, competence, etc. while still accepting the reality of a threat.

anamax 16y ago

> This is the first I've heard of him What other atmospheric scientists have you heard of and why?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

I'd heard of him because he'd misinterpreted satellite data that apparently conflicted with the general consensus. I'd assumed that was an honest mistake but it appears that every time one of his theories gets shot down, he just moves on to the next one. The fact that they all seem to have an implicit message of "don't worry about it, everything's fine" is looking less coincidental as time passes.

BearOfNH 16y ago
every time one of his theories gets shot down, he just moves on to the next one So ... when faced with facts that contradict his theories, he modifies his theories so as to be consistent with the facts. Isn't this what, you know, a real scientist should do?