6 ms·

http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

by dgabriel 17y ago

diego_moita 17y ago
Thanks. That link brings a lot of perspective.
- JshWright 17y ago
  Yeah, I especially like the bit where they "prove" he "might" have lied to congress by posting a youtube video of a completely unrelated group "lying" to congress.
gaius 17y ago
Anyone who thinks "skeptic" is a perjorative is not a scientist.
- diego_moita 17y ago
  Don't be silly. This is not about scientific skepticism anymore. But, in truth, Lindzen and the WSJ are not skeptics, they're deniers. Skeptic is someone not convinced that something is true. Denier is someone that believes that something is false. Lindzen (and the WSJ) are deniers.
- nsfmc 17y ago
  > Well for one thing Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend. Despite this he still manages to get his opinions published... No, but in order to be a scientist, you have to do... science, not opinion.
  - hga 17y ago
    You can and many do "do science" without offering alternatives, all you have to do is to point out how those you are criticizing are wrong, e.g. in interpretations of data, use of statistics, etc. Are those Canadian statisticians not doing science when they point out that you can use Mann's methods to get a hockey stick out of random noise?
    - nsfmc 17y ago
      yes, we agree. science and rigor, not opinion and conjecture.
    - vannevar 17y ago
      No statistician, Canadian or otherwise, has shown that Mann's methods could generate a 'hockey stick' curve from random data.
      - hga 17y ago
        Red noise, to be precise: http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise
        vannevar 17y ago
        No. A claim was made by two individuals, one a mining executive, the other an economist, in a trade publication called Energy and Environment with no peer review. Both of the authors are well-known industry skeptics. The claim was subsequently refuted by Mann, and ultimately discredited in a peer-reviewed article for the Journal of Climate (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3351.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3351.1), in which an alternate method confirmed the original result. The skeptics were Canadian, though, so at least you got one thing right.
        hga 17y ago
        This would be the same Journal of Climate that Mann was once an editor of (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=201 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=201)? The invocation of "peer review" doesn't mean anything (good) nowadays in this field, as previously discussed (see also what the CRU emails revealed about ... management of "acceptable" journals and editors), and a single peer reviewed paper by the CRU circle including Mann is less than convincing, let alone definitive. This email from McIntyre and McKitrick http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=458 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=458 should raise some serious questions about it.
- pc 17y ago
  What makes you think they mean it pejoratively? There are sites describing strong AI skeptics, paranormal activity skeptics, quantum computing skeptics, extra-terrestrial life skeptics. It's the reasons for their skepticism that matters.
pavs 17y ago
Important part: " Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 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. His connections to the oil, coal, and even tobacco industry are apparently rather extensive. Here is one listof many that is worth exploring. Richard Lindzen claims he is currently not recieving any handouts from oil companies."
- anamax 17y ago
  If you're going to argue that he's been bought, you get to explain why AGW supporters aren't bought as well. After all, the connection between their conclusions and their funding is even stronger. Of course, the truth is that money isn't the most corrupting influence by a large margin - true belief is. You can often spot true believers by their insistence that money is the only reason why their position isn't universally accepted.
  - dgabriel 17y ago
    All science is bought by special interests to a certain extent. Frankly, I think the connections to the oil industry, et al., are not as important as the veracity (or lack thereof) of his claims.
    - g2boojum 17y ago
      "All science is bought by special interests to a certain extent." Any evidence for that statement? My academic research was mostly funded by the US NSF, which doesn't really strike me as a "special interest". The NSF doesn't particularly care what the results are, just that the questions are worth answering and that the approach is reasonable.
      - hga 17y ago
hga 17y ago
First item: "How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?" Which is followed by an appeal to authority. Most of the following is appeals to authority, attacks on his funding (necessarily from eeevil sources since "the consensus" has halted funding to "deniers"), complaints about his not have current peer reviewed papers (see previous item), etc. Sorry, but if we're talking real science, all he needs is an inconvenient fact to demolish the consensus (which is not quite what is being argued here; his point is that there isn't really a consensus, which it demonstrably true). There are some attempts to deal with what he says on a basis of facts and the like (although some of them are appeals to the authority of the web site, e.g. general claims without references that would allow you to judge for yourself), but the site's dishonest style doesn't exactly encourage you to bother to see if it's telling the truth in those instances.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  If someone is arguing that there is no consensus of opinion (second sentence on the page: "He is rather well known for claiming that "There's no consensus on global warming.""), then long lists of prominent institutions who have subscribed to that opinion isn't an appeal to authority, it's relevant info.
  - hga 17y ago
    Without lists of those on the other side, its relevance is limited. Insert, oh, the former "consensus" against heliocentrism. Relevant in a period calling for capital trials against "deniers" and HN commentators calling for their criminal prosecution (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283240 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283240).
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      Well at least we've established that it's not an appeal to authority. Of course if it was, then this is a fairly convincing set of authorities, being the National Academy of Science in the US and their equivalents in the 12 largest countries in the world. Who's missing that could even theoretically be on the other side? South Korea, Mexico, Spain? I have no idea who would rank up there with them but if I had to bet I'd say their national bodies representing science are going to be on the same side of the debate as those listed. Again, this is someone who denies there is a consensus. That's relatively easy to fact check. It would be like knowing whether the church was for or against the Sun orbiting the Earth. It's an entirely seperate question from whether that position is factually correct. And, if you can't get that right why trust you on anything more complex?

http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

diego_moita 17y ago

Thanks. That link brings a lot of perspective.

JshWright 17y ago
Yeah, I especially like the bit where they "prove" he "might" have lied to congress by posting a youtube video of a completely unrelated group "lying" to congress.

gaius 17y ago

Anyone who thinks "skeptic" is a perjorative is not a scientist.

diego_moita 17y ago
Don't be silly. This is not about scientific skepticism anymore. But, in truth, Lindzen and the WSJ are not skeptics, they're deniers. Skeptic is someone not convinced that something is true. Denier is someone that believes that something is false. Lindzen (and the WSJ) are deniers.
nsfmc 17y ago
> Well for one thing Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend. Despite this he still manages to get his opinions published... No, but in order to be a scientist, you have to do... science, not opinion.
- hga 17y ago
  You can and many do "do science" without offering alternatives, all you have to do is to point out how those you are criticizing are wrong, e.g. in interpretations of data, use of statistics, etc. Are those Canadian statisticians not doing science when they point out that you can use Mann's methods to get a hockey stick out of random noise?
  - nsfmc 17y ago
    yes, we agree. science and rigor, not opinion and conjecture.
  - vannevar 17y ago
    No statistician, Canadian or otherwise, has shown that Mann's methods could generate a 'hockey stick' curve from random data.
    - hga 17y ago
      Red noise, to be precise: http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise
      - vannevar 17y ago
        No. A claim was made by two individuals, one a mining executive, the other an economist, in a trade publication called Energy and Environment with no peer review. Both of the authors are well-known industry skeptics. The claim was subsequently refuted by Mann, and ultimately discredited in a peer-reviewed article for the Journal of Climate (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3351.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3351.1), in which an alternate method confirmed the original result. The skeptics were Canadian, though, so at least you got one thing right.
        hga 17y ago
        This would be the same Journal of Climate that Mann was once an editor of (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=201 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=201)? The invocation of "peer review" doesn't mean anything (good) nowadays in this field, as previously discussed (see also what the CRU emails revealed about ... management of "acceptable" journals and editors), and a single peer reviewed paper by the CRU circle including Mann is less than convincing, let alone definitive. This email from McIntyre and McKitrick http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=458 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=458 should raise some serious questions about it.
pc 17y ago
What makes you think they mean it pejoratively? There are sites describing strong AI skeptics, paranormal activity skeptics, quantum computing skeptics, extra-terrestrial life skeptics. It's the reasons for their skepticism that matters.

pavs 17y ago

Important part: " Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 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. His connections to the oil, coal, and even tobacco industry are apparently rather extensive. Here is one listof many that is worth exploring. Richard Lindzen claims he is currently not recieving any handouts from oil companies."

anamax 17y ago
If you're going to argue that he's been bought, you get to explain why AGW supporters aren't bought as well. After all, the connection between their conclusions and their funding is even stronger. Of course, the truth is that money isn't the most corrupting influence by a large margin - true belief is. You can often spot true believers by their insistence that money is the only reason why their position isn't universally accepted.
- dgabriel 17y ago
  All science is bought by special interests to a certain extent. Frankly, I think the connections to the oil industry, et al., are not as important as the veracity (or lack thereof) of his claims.
  - g2boojum 17y ago
    "All science is bought by special interests to a certain extent." Any evidence for that statement? My academic research was mostly funded by the US NSF, which doesn't really strike me as a "special interest". The NSF doesn't particularly care what the results are, just that the questions are worth answering and that the approach is reasonable.
    - hga 17y ago

hga 17y ago

First item: "How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?" Which is followed by an appeal to authority. Most of the following is appeals to authority, attacks on his funding (necessarily from eeevil sources since "the consensus" has halted funding to "deniers"), complaints about his not have current peer reviewed papers (see previous item), etc. Sorry, but if we're talking real science, all he needs is an inconvenient fact to demolish the consensus (which is not quite what is being argued here; his point is that there isn't really a consensus, which it demonstrably true). There are some attempts to deal with what he says on a basis of facts and the like (although some of them are appeals to the authority of the web site, e.g. general claims without references that would allow you to judge for yourself), but the site's dishonest style doesn't exactly encourage you to bother to see if it's telling the truth in those instances.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
If someone is arguing that there is no consensus of opinion (second sentence on the page: "He is rather well known for claiming that "There's no consensus on global warming.""), then long lists of prominent institutions who have subscribed to that opinion isn't an appeal to authority, it's relevant info.
- hga 17y ago
  Without lists of those on the other side, its relevance is limited. Insert, oh, the former "consensus" against heliocentrism. Relevant in a period calling for capital trials against "deniers" and HN commentators calling for their criminal prosecution (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283240 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283240).
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Well at least we've established that it's not an appeal to authority. Of course if it was, then this is a fairly convincing set of authorities, being the National Academy of Science in the US and their equivalents in the 12 largest countries in the world. Who's missing that could even theoretically be on the other side? South Korea, Mexico, Spain? I have no idea who would rank up there with them but if I had to bet I'd say their national bodies representing science are going to be on the same side of the debate as those listed. Again, this is someone who denies there is a consensus. That's relatively easy to fact check. It would be like knowing whether the church was for or against the Sun orbiting the Earth. It's an entirely seperate question from whether that position is factually correct. And, if you can't get that right why trust you on anything more complex?