Scientists say White House muzzled them

unfortunately that's not the only research they're suppressing. and it's not the first time this has come up. and it won't be the last.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 3 2006, 05:08 PM) [snapback]343581[/snapback]</div>

You're right, not the first time. Gore beat Bush to it... link

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 3 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]343612[/snapback]</div>

Ah Lindzen... we were just discussing him on another thread. However, what he fails to point out is that scientists are largely calling for action now, not more research. If they really wanted more research money they would get more of it by playing into the controversey. To me his argument doesn't hold a lot of water, whatever your opinions on GW. Lindzen also has ties to oil, so what he says has to be read with that in mind. It doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong, but he has made some rather misleading statements from time to time and many of his theories have been proved incorrect (the Iris Effect, for example).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 3 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]343624[/snapback]</div>

Hey Tripp. My point was suppression of the science - Gore's browbeating of Lindzen being an example from the other side of the aisle.

As for Lindzen's ties to oil, these are way, way overblown statements by Ross Gelbspan (who so happens to make HIS living off of GW alarmism). I have communicated directly with Lindzen on this and if I recall correctly, in his e-mail to me he acknowleged that he let a small power company comp him on a trip to DC to testify before Congress on Global Warming - and acknowleges now this is was a mistake if for no other reason that it called into question his integrity. His e-mail was more than satisfactory to me and he was quite critical of Gelbspan and the lengths to which he went to blow this out of proportion to make him look like a stooge of the energy industry.

As for the "infrared iris" - the claims are that this has been "debunked". However, given the recent observation of dramatic cooling of the ocean and the related tremendous energy loss, I would say that Lindzen's Iris work may not be so far off the mark as it is claimed - unless another plausible explanation for the cooling is uncovered.

Finally - on the misleading statements - it is an unfortunate situation when scientists are thrust into the public policy debate, but it is a necessary evil of our system I suppose. James Hansen has been similarly criticized for misleading statements - so you can't single Lindzen out without recognizing he is not alone ...See link re: Hansen

 

Tim, interesting link. I poked around a little bit and was struck by the following...

"Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose."

And

"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur."

I must admit that I have only a dim awareness of the science. Wading through the acronyms alone is daunting but it's interesting stuff. I will point you to the following, which is a rebuttal of Lindzen's op-ed in the WSJ (daunting or not they're just so bloody useful ).

Having said that, I'll readily agree that Gore's hands aren't clean. I think that he's using AGW as the "answer" to the terror issue that's so popular with neo-cons. It's all fear driven politics. It is interesting that this was going on back in the late 80's, long before AGW was really in the public consciousness.

AFAIK, "Iris" is still in the discredited category but as the author of the rebuttal writes, "In any case, there's certainly been a lively debate about the paper, and if it's widely viewed as "discredited", then that's the judgement of the climate dynamics community. If we're a bunch of dummies, history will judge us harshly, but we can only do our best."

 

This is the usual tactic of obfuscation. Lindzen is not a scientist, and the WSJ is not a peer-reviewed journal. In the discussion of climate only data and interpretation from scientists and their journals can be used. The remaining is punditry.

Interestingly the only "side" that disagrees with the facts of climate change are pundits with oil company ties.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 4 2006, 12:23 AM) [snapback]343681[/snapback]</div>

No, he is a climate scientist and has been for quite sometime. He has published many articles in peer reviewed journals.

Lets be clear on this one, he's not another Marlo Lewis.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 3 2006, 11:23 PM) [snapback]343681[/snapback]</div>

Lindzen, not a scientist? Huh? That's a good one.

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University).

Regardless - my comment still stands. Gore has conducted the same sort of scientific witch hunt, if you will, that the original post is accusing Bush of doing. Nothing new, when it comes to politics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 3 2006, 11:00 PM) [snapback]343679[/snapback]</div>

Interesting observation.

I won't get into the point by point rebuttal of Lindzen since my lack of true understanding would not enable me to sort it all out. But my point in posting the Lindzen piece had more to do with his references to Gore pressuring him to alter his views, not specifically the arguments he was making in the WSJ piece about the science.

 

My apologies! Lindzen is described as the "most respectable skeptic" regarding global climate. I made the error of generalizing from the intelligent design Vs evolution issue where there isn't a single skeptic that is not a wacko. Climate change it appears is not that clean cut. However looking in the literature, wikipedia realclimate.org I found two interesting points:

This:

"According to a former Boston Globe reporter and author, Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen has accepted money from oil and coals interests for consulting services, expert testimony, and speech writing. In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Gelbsan asserted that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[24]

24. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

And this:

"However, he (Lindzen) does seem to have become convinced that the 20th Century warming is real. What is interesting about the comparison between then and now, is that Hansen made two appeals to the data gathering community to test a) whether water vapour feedbacks can be observed, and B) whether the ocean heat content is increasing in line with the model predictions. It is quite telling that both of these data analyses have since been made and they confirm Hansen's contentions, not Lindzen's."

And that none of his published work actually contests climate change! Whenever he speaks of alarmism and kyoto faults he is expressing an opinion, not a published conclusion. Tricky! But what makes me most suspicious is the persecution tone in his article. For me that that is the telltale sign of a contrarian that has los credibility within the field and has to resort to accusations of persecution.

Regarding the Al Gore alegation that's immaterial to me. What matters is the data.

 

Yes, but at the time (1989) I wonder what the data were. My suspicion is that there was a pretty large spread of opinions on a variety of subjects. If Gore did act as charged then he's no better than the Salem witch hunters or 'W'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 3 2006, 11:55 PM) [snapback]343687[/snapback]</div>

See my earlier comment about Gelbspan. He is a global warming alarmist who makes his living off of the cause. As I mentioned, Lindzen explained his trip paid for Western Fuels was a mistake - he freely admits this. As for the consulting, how is it that Lindzen is held to any different of a standard than Gelbspan who derives his income from writing alarmist articles for a variety of environmental organizations? I don't see a distinction. Lindzen was so angry at Gelbspan's mis-characterization that he told me he contemplated suing him for libel. However, he did not have the money or time to do so, at the time. "Such is life", he said.

BTW, Gelbspan's cheap shots not-with-standing, apparently the IPCC finds Lindzen's expertise and objectivity sufficient such that they included him as an expert reviewer in IPCC TAR.

On a final note - that was a nice try at diversion to attack Lindzen. The point of the thread is that Bush is suppressing the science. My contention is Gore did the same (not that that makes it right). Do you care to comment on Gore instead of ad hominen attacks on Lindzen designed to change the subject?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 5 2006, 11:47 PM) [snapback]344360[/snapback]</div>

Well, at least most climate change scientists would agree with the agenda Gore was allegedly pushing. In the Bush administration they are siding with contrarians, not only with regards to climate change but evolution, the big bang, stem cells, plan B, the cervical papilloma virus vaccine, alternative fuels, the electric car, etc.

I would rather see a politician push towards the scientific consensus than be pushed back to the middle ages.