In a way that is true, but Newsweek writes it in a way that's deceptive.

The entire quote is:
"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."

Lindzen's research funding is exclusively from the government, and Lindzen has received no RESEARCH funding from energy companies. Lindzen has received CONSULTING funding from the energy companies.

The biographical note is like the editorial itself. It appears to be correct, but its wrong and worded deceptively.  

I am not a climate scientist, but I follow the debate carefully, and have a pretty good layman's understanding of the issue. I have two (well, three) questions about the op-ed.

Lindzen goes on a bender about how climate scientists use untrustworthy models, "similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now". Now, I thought weather and climate were different things. Am I right in thinking this is a ridiculous statement on the face of it? (Again, I am not a climate scientist.)

How much of Lindzen's peer-reviewed research actually attacks the notion of rising temperatures? I've looked through some of the databases and he's certainly published a fair bit, but I can't understand the jargon in even the abstracts. How serious is his science? (Again, IANACS.)

My lay impression of the article is that Lindzen has jumped the shark. Anyone better placed to comment on that?

Cheers!

Professor Linzden's data and logic is surpassing difficult to argue.  He regularly refers to the well known fact that climate models are but tools being forged, not accurate and reliable predictive methods.

One of his best examples is that the METS model (one of the 4 most influential models) has predicted that summer rainfall in Ireland and the Central Sahara is the same.

What is known is that plants evolved and genetically fixed the C3 photosynthesis metabolic pathway in an atmosphere of about ten times present atmospheric C02.

The reason that 90% of atmospheric CO2 in the earlier atmosphere is not still in the atmosphere we breath is that plants fixed the CO2 in forms such as limestone.

In the Everglades, where I live, there is approximately 14,000 feet of lime rock - ALL of which was metabolically fixed.  Yea, photosysthesis!

As we free more CO2 by burning carbon fuels, we cause faster and more efficient photosynthesis.  Look up Dr. Idso's work on mass of plants (sour orange trees) grown in CO2 enhanced atmospheres.

Not only does increased CO2 cause faster plant growth, it results in lower water requirement for plant growth.

PS   Buy lawn mower stock - - Grass WILL grow faster in the future!

You're absolutely right about the distinction between climate and weather. In plain English, a climatology is thirty years worth of weather in a given region. (For example, if you take a look at the paper on perpetual drought in the Southwest by Martin Hoerling linked above, you'll see graphs that discuss drought in blocks of thirty years for that region.) Lindzen obviously knows that, so it's very cynical of him to repeatedly claim that because we can't predict precipitation more than a few days into the future, that we cannot project higher temps forced by the greenhouse gas effect.

Lindzen does concede (with other doubters) that temperatures are rising, but claims that it may be due to some other mechanism than global warming.

I think Lindsen jumped the shark when he claimed a couple of months ago on TV that people alarmed by global warming were like "little children." But that's not as spectacular as his fellow doubter William Gray of Colorado State University, who last June compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler.

As a glaciologist and a climate scientist I first met Lindzen 24 years ago, at a conference that focussed on the threats of global warming.  Over the years it has been interesting to see him backpedal from sulfates will cause more cooling than CO2 warming, to it is going to be a wash, to it is definetly going to warm up but not much, to it is warming up but it will be good.  He loves the spotlight, always has, and he has gained it and held it by being a contrarian on the issue. Most scientists I know, including many contributing to the IPCC, consistently avoid that same spotlight, and try to let the data speak for them.  

mspelto

One of the biggest problems our so called skeptics and deniers have is the lack of ability to distinguish between scientists and activists. Al Gore is not a scientist, Lindzen claims to be one. Al Gore is vastly more right in his views on global warming then wrong. Lindzen knows better, is a trained scientist and is therefor dishonest.

So Al Gore makes money. Good for him. If we have to believe the so called skeptics anybody who states that global warming is a problem is not allowed to make any money and has to live in a cave without any electricity. You have to be a saint apparently. It is both ridiculous and a complete fabrication as to what Gore is saying needs to be done.

The point Gore is making is that we can do this. He believes in the capability of the human race to tackle such a major issue. The deniers do not have that faith in our capabilities. Please leave things the way they are because we won't be able to cope. It will be the end of our society! Let's face it, the skeptics are a bunch of alarmist, apocalyptic scare mongerers.

For those who want to calibrate Lindzen's credibility, here's a quote from a July 23, 2001 profile of Lindzen in Newsweek:Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.So the same guy telling us not to worry about climate change is also telling us not to worry about smoking.

I think that clearly puts Lindzen's statements about climate change in context: he would rather be a naysayer than be right.

The guys has a nice career going for himself. I'm sure he is very proud when he looks in the mirror in the morning. In a few years he will move on to something else...

Actually the USA has closer to 5% of the world population but you are probably right anyway. It's close enough. Maybe we will take up the less fortunate in the US.
We will just have to segregate the rest of you guys... Very brave of you to sacrifice yourself like this. We will make a small statue right behind the public toilet.

At one time I think I was critical of Mr. Dessler of TAMU but after checking his credentials and papers, I have solid faith in the man and his observations about our wayward boy of negatory manners, Mr. Lindzen.  

Do not dwell on the naysayers or Lindzen's failed strategies.  Yes, models are just a simulation that can be biased by its constructs but the exact same same be say for observational atmospheric physics, lead by Dr. Gray of University of Colorado - sometimes they completely fail, too.

Why spend valuable time dissing some creeps who want to promite personal strategies and vendettas when we have so much work to get done?  

Oh, and thank you, Dr. Andrew Dressler.  I want to hear more from you in the future.  You are an asset to the Grist when you comment.

Clifford H. Wells ("sammie")
Masters of Applied Geography
Wells Environmental Consulting, LLC
South Padre Island, TX

Onward through the fog

... for clearing that weather/climate thing up.

I think the problem I have as a non-scientist is that society puts such faith on scientists. When a few contrarians are held up by the media as balancing the AGW consensus, we stop and think, "Hang on a bit, what if they're right?" I think you know how it goes from there.

Andrew, you're doing a great job. Please don't stop exposing sceptics when they hog the spotlight. It's a valuable service to people like me, who aren't familiar with the science.

All I see is a bunch of pipsqueaks hiding behind the IPCC and Al Gore.

How about this then?

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan

i.e. The biggest national science organizations in the world.

_

All you have on the NGW side is a handful of individual scientists who speak more of conspiratorial rhetoric than scientific evidence.

So essentially we're onto the next stage of denial

"It's not happening"
"We're not causing it"
"You can't prove that it will be a bad thing if it does happen. Infact I believe it will be a very good thing."

Progressively the argument gets even more stupid.

4. Which then transforms into
We will have more money and technology in the future, dealing with Global Warming now just isn't cost effective.

_

Basically saying Prevention is more costly than Adaptation plus Desperate Measures.

It's a lot harder to get the cat back into the bag, especially when it has claws.

I was talking with some folks this afternoon and I said that I became aware of Global Warming in a undergrad class on environmental science at the University of Texas in 1974.  Another slightly older fellow said he read about it in 1969 for his doctoral.  A third dude asks "But hey wasn't that when we were supposed to have Global Cooling?"

We glared at him in disbelief.  We tried to explain that for the most part, all academic scientists were under immense pressure to get published and some [loud-mouth scientists] adopted "maverick" opposing opinions so as to sell books and get on TV, and that the mainstream had been recording remarkably continuously higher climactic averages when viewed annually over 30 years.  Simply stated, there was no proof for global cooling in the US or worldwide, and we knew about it for many decades.

Some of us who have been around since 1970 cringe at the idea of even using global average temeratures to indicate Global Warming, since in fact some areas might be indeed cooling.  We had hoped that by using geographic information systems we could show the "hot spots" were hot and the imbalances there could cause cooling of certain other areas at certain times, and damn the global averages because they didn't mean shit to a tree.

For example, we know that if Arctic ice melts it will flood certain currents such as the Laborador and the meltwater could end up plunging northern Europe into a mini-Ice Age, while other areas of the world would bake and fry in extreme heat; inland areas would be baked dry and coastal areas could be deluged by a combination of sea level rise and tropical cyclones.  We had hoped the science could go these more discrete directions, and be able to guage the mass balance of thermal heat input much better than using one global average temperature, which is as stupid is as stupid gets.

But 25 years later we're still trying to convince Americans whether or not Global Warming effects from man-made carbon dioxide even exist.  Dang, that really sucks.  In hindsight the topic wasn't managed to darn good.  Maybe a new crop of kids can do better than us old farts.  I certainly hope so.  /sammie

Onward through the fog

Lindzen is right. You people should listen to him
instead of (non-scientist)Al Gore. There is no global warming crisis.