I'm not sure there's much value left in rebutting Dick Lindzen's schtick every time it pops up. He keeps saying the same stuff, so the rebuttals keep saying the same stuff, and at this point anyone interested in the schtick or the rebuttal has a panoply of sources close at hand.
Nonetheless, Newsweek's egregious bad judgment means that millions of new people are being exposed to the schtick, so, therefore and forthwith: the rebuttal, again, from RealClimate. Spread it around.
This bit, which Kit also noticed, is worth repeating:
Finally, we find it curious that Lindzen chose to include this very lawyerly disclaimer at the end of the piece:[Lindzen's] research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.Richard, one thinks thou doth protest too much! A casual reader would be led to infer that Lindzen has received no industry money for his services. But that would be wrong. He has in fact received a pretty penny from industry. But this isn't for research. Rather it is for his faithful advocacy of a fossil fuel industry-friendly point of view. So Lindzen's claim is true, on a technicality. But while the reader is led to believe that there is no conflict of interest at work behind Lindzen's writings, just the opposite is the case.
On ‘climategate’
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
Earth Shaman Posted 4:15 am
18 Apr 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 4:40 am
18 Apr 2007
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 6:11 am
18 Apr 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
VTpowderhound Posted 6:29 am
18 Apr 2007
Forgive me, I'll be brief here as I need to get back to work.
While it certainly is possible that solar activity may be repsonsible for a percentage in the global rise in temps over the past 30 years, it is implausible that solar activity alone could account for the most extraordinary rise in temps the world has ever seen (when I say this, I mean biggest increase in temps in such a short period of time. I'm sure this is a statistical term for what I'm referring to, I just can't think of it off hand).
This same rise in temps over the past 30 years has coincided with a huge increase in carbon and other GHG's in the global atmosphere, in part fueled by globalization and the exploding economies of India and China, as well as other factors.
No natural phenomena in history can explain what has ocurred since the 70's. Certainly, enhanced solar activity and other natural processes may be exacerbating the problem, but it is wishful thinking to imply that anthropogenic warming is not the main driver of the problem.
I appeal to your senses that all successful organizations and organisms employ various forms of risk management. At a minimum, we must deploy mitigation strategies immediately. If all us hippies are wrong, we can go back to business as usual. But we must plan for unfortunate outcomes now, or else we will be completely unprepared for negative consequences.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 8:35 am
18 Apr 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 11:16 am
18 Apr 2007
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:38 pm
18 Apr 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 6:12 pm
18 Apr 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 3:46 am
19 Apr 2007
Great title. And, thank you for bringing attention to RealClimate's discussion of Lindzen's oped.
I tend to think that, as painful as it is, we cannot let stand a denialist's arguments, especially when it is as prominent as in Newsweek.
In that vein, my shot at decontructing this Lindzen piece was "J'Accuse: Newsweek harbors Global Warming Deniers" (http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/jaccuse-newsweek-harbo ...). (PS: And, that was sparked by Kit Stolz's post "Newsweek blesses Richard Lindzen, ignores pay-offs from fuel companies" (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/13/114644/561).
What is interesting is that Lindzen is no longer simply raising questins and being misleading, but moving to direct falsehoods. For example,
" There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way ..."
Well, there is evidence. Lindzen might want to contest it, but there is evidence. See, for example: Science Daily's video "Harder Rain, More Snow: Meteorologists See Future of Increasingly Extreme Weather Events." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006-02-05/)
Sadly, I don't expect Newsweek to publish any form of corrective material. Just as they let Fareed Zakaria's errors re US energy use (and therefore, false conclusions about importance of energy efficiency) to pass through without correction. (http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/fareed-zakaria-wrong-f ...)
Permalink