Posted on 04/25/2007 2:27:27 AM PDT by jsh3180
Money is partly to blame for the global warming hysteria, Professor Richard Lindzen says Linda Frum, National Post Published: Saturday, April 21, 2007
This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-andgloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.
Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?
A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.
Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?
A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.
Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?
A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.
Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?
A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.
Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?
A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.
Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?
A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.
Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?
A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.
Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?
A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.
If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them. Q Did you watch Al Gore ge this Academy Award?
A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.
Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.
A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.
Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
A Well, he's dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.
Q How cynical do you think Gore is?
A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.
Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.
A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.
Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?
A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.
Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"
A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.
Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?
A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy.
A favorite denier of mine is also getting old like me.SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project
Dr Fred Singer’s site Address:
Al Gore has a fever!
Gold Fever!
Like religion used to force everyone into saying “I believe in God”, the global warming movement has forced everyone into saying “I believe in global warming.”
The most egregious thing is the political parasites and environmental parasites at the top of the AGW swindle is their intent to undermine science by politicizing it.
If they can convince enough people that they can nail Jell-O to the wall it opens the flood gates to evermore politicizing of science. It's almost as though they took a page right out of the Dark Ages.
It may not be corruption, but neither is it the noble, unbiased search for knowledge that some would have us believe.
After years in academia, the more I see of government-funded resarch, the less I like it.
It's almost as though they took a page right out of the Dark Ages.
Almost? These methods have been around throughout history.
|
Thanks.
Pong!
bump for later fun, good post
Wow! I only had to wipe with one square for less than a week and everything is OK now.
bump — Lindzen is an interesting bird to watch these days.
Nice post.. thanks...
Great interview. Thanks.
Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.
CP: Furthermore, over the last 25 years, the rate of warming has also been 0.8 degrees (C), much easier to measure because it's a stronger signal.
If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place.
CP: See point #4 in my profile. This can be said because the 1998 El Nino pulled global temperatures that year 0.2 C above the increasing temperature trendline. 2005, with no El Nino, was basically on the trendline, and was basically as warm as 1998. Thus, the trendline indicates a global temperature increase of about 0.2 C since 1998, consistent with the 0.8 C rise over the past 25 years. 2005-1998 = 7 years. 25/7 = 3.6. 3.6 x 0.2 C = 0.72 C. I presume an MIT professor can do math?
Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming."
CP: A 1992 article; Lindzen states this as if Revelle's opinion might not have changed with another 15 years of data and observations. And it was co-authored with well-known skeptic S. Fred Singer, who may have substantially determined the tone of the article. Revelle was rightly concerned about the accuracy of climate models in 1992. In response to the libel suit and Singer, Revelle's daughter wrote an op-ed piece entitled "What my Father Really Said". This article can only be obtained by paying the Washington Post. However, the blog article below has excerpts in a comment:
Andrew Bolt Gets a Perfect Score
Excerpt from the article, found in the comment:
"When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense - measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate." [In 1992. One of these steps was a $1.00/gallon gas tax.]
They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.
CP: With regard to Crichton's book:
For anyone reading the post above, I’ll be unavailable for the next 10 days. Talk amongst yourselves.
OK, “CP”, if you want to support a dollar-a-gallon tax increase on gasoline, go for it. I’m not the one who’s going to have to explain to a poor person why he suddenly can’t afford to drive.
And at least stipulate that it go to something useful, like highways, rather than some energy scam like ethanol.
Have a good vacation. You will probably need fossil fuels to get where you’re going.
“I think his aim is not to be president. It’s to be a billionaire. “
Al needs to put some ice on this.
Still currently unavoidable with available technology. But I am using a MPV.
What does that mean?
A Well, he's dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
This is where I stopped reading
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.