Lindzen wipes hands clean of oil and gas

Mon, 2006-07-24 14:57Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Lindzen wipes hands clean of oil and gas

The Journal News out of Westchester recently did a story on Dr. RichardRichard Lindzen Lindzen who they claim “…hasn't conducted any research for oil or coal companies.”

I guess it may be technically correct that Lindzen has never conducted “research” for oil and coal interests, but that of course would depend on how you define “research.”

Here is what we do know about Lindzen's connections to the fossil fuel industry over the years:

Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; 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.

Three skeptics—Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling—were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.

No mention of this in the Journal News article. Too bad, as it would have changed the context of the entire piece.

Previous Comments

An important message
I have an important message for everyone,Sometimes you may feel not well, but doctor tell you there is any trouble with your body. Now you need to do some exercises, like running, mountain climbing or playing basketball with fitness equipment and so on, All of these exercises you can get in gym club, or get some fitness equipments in your home to help you re-achieve a plentiful vigor and energy after making exercise. You have more fitness equipment category could be chosen: gym equipment,strength equipment, commercial treadmill, home treadmill, motorized treadmill, elliptical equipment, exercise bike, rowing machine, spinning bike,sports equipment and weight machine.If it is possible for you make personal training more convenient, and you are well-to-do, treadmill will be your best choice in home, plus strength equipment , that will be wonderful. Losing weight, Looking fresh, strong muscle and beauty body will come true for you. Good luck!

An important message
I have an important message for everyone,Sometimes you may feel not well, but doctor tell you there is any trouble with your body. Now you need to do some exercises, like running, mountain climbing or playing basketball with fitness equipment and so on, All of these exercises you can get in gym club, or get some fitness equipments in your home to help you re-achieve a plentiful vigor and energy after making exercise. You have more fitness equipment category could be chosen: gym equipment,strength equipment, commercial treadmill, home treadmill, motorized treadmill, elliptical equipment, exercise bike, rowing machine, spinning bike,sports equipment and weight machine.If it is possible for you make personal training more convenient, and you are well-to-do, treadmill will be your best choice in home, plus strength equipment , that will be wonderful. Losing weight, Looking fresh, strong muscle and beauty body will come true for you. Good luck!

Re: “Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services…” Your supporting link is an article that is 11 years old. Do you have anything from this century?
The article in the Journal News is interesting, though. I wish you had commented on any of the things Lindzen said: Lindzen said he saw the movie and found himself laughing despite having heard some of the presentation before.

“It was bizarre,” he said of his viewing experience. “No one person actually covers everything he talked about. The analysis that this is the hottest time in a thousand years just drove anyone in statistics crazy.”

And the 20-foot rise in sea levels that would flood so many out of their homes was based on assumptions done 25 years ago, Lindzen said, as part of a cost-benefit analysis, not as a scientific projection. It’s just captured the public’s fancy and has remained a constant in the ongoing debate.

Gore’s generalizations and “the sky is falling” characterization have done a disservice to the democratic process, Lindzen said, because policy should come from a well-informed population.

“The temperature change over the last century, even if it were all due to man, is so much less than the models predict,” said Lindzen, who has received government funding for his research during Republican and Democratic administrations, but hasn’t conducted any research for oil or coal companies.

While the professor doesn’t lose any sleep over the potential cataclysm Gore is predicting, that doesn’t keep him from supporting efforts to help the environment.

Lindzen just doesn’t believe they should be done in the name of fighting global warming.

“Things like decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels have to be defended on their own terms,” he said. “Man is terribly bad at forecasting and doing things in advance. But we’re very good at adapting. Ever since we invented the umbrella, we’ve shown we can deal with weather.”Care to debate or debunk any of his actual assertions about global warming?

We’ll stick with the scientific consensus.

I am wondering what your motivation is to continue to believe in this small group of scientists that are clearly on the fringe of the scientific community. As Oreskes says in her LA Times article today:

“To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.”

Actually the fringe would be those in the Hansen camp - have you heard him lately? He sounds more like a political hack than scientist in recent years.
As for your affinity for the “consensus”, it sounds much like the consensus that Galileo faced - the consensus sounds much more like the church than science. That said, your “consensus” is much weaker than you believe (and “belief” is the operative word for those that worship at the global warming alter like yourself).

Sounds like she’s talking about Mr. Gelbspan’s refusal to accept the consensus, so memorably described by Mr. Littlemore, that the hockey stick is flaccid.
I thought the history professor’s article was silly, actually. She tried to rebut Benny Peiser by discussing the theory of continental drift in the 1920s. I believe her tactic is referred to as “fallacy by misdirection.”

Michael Mann uses that one, also.

Benny Peiser’s work has been discredited. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/peisners-34-33-abstracts.html for details.

The Oreskes review had problems that were revealed when Peiser attempted to replicate it.  Any errors he made unsuccessfully attemptingto replicate her review of the literature reflect on him of course but don’t eliminate her responsibility for the errors she made.  My guess is that is why she did not want to address Peiser head on in her Los Angeles Times piece.  Much safer to discuss the 1920s.
Another view-
http://maize-energy.blogspot.com/2006/07/naomi-oreskes-asks-wrong-climate.html

Tartly Critical, - If you look here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm , you find a short history of this entire controversy. Notably, Peiser has abandoned his criticism of Oreskes’ work: What he claimed were incorrect assignments on Oreskes’ part turned out to be incorrect assignments on HIS part. To quote him: “Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 “reject or doubt” category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.” and also: “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact.” - One reason that Oreskes may not have addressed Peiser’s original note was that it was never published in a journal or newspaper. It was just made available on a website. In my opinion, Oreskes’ work stands. Peiser’s has gone down the drain.

Well, as is typical of these drive by machine gunning attacks, it is difficult to pin down any one thing because nothing is specific or factual.

“The analysis that this is the hottest time in a thousand years just drove anyone in statistics crazy.”

A swipe at MBH98 I presume.  According the the recent NAS report the conclusions of that study are “plausible”, so while Lindzen may in fact have a legitimate criticism, he is seriously misrepresenting things here.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/06/hockey-season-finally-over.html 

“And the 20-foot rise in sea levels that would flood so many out of their homes was based on assumptions done 25 years ago”

Perhaps, but so what?  Those numbers are completely non-controversial and well established.  Greenland has enough ice for 6.5m sea level rise, the WAIS has enough for 8m, EAIS 65m.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

So why is Lindzen laughing at this?  Could it be he has no substantive point to make? 

“The temperature change over the last century, even if it were all due to man, is so much less than the models predict,”

What models is he referring to?  The 20th century is very successfully hindcasted by all the major climate models.  Any model that could not do so would clearly be severly limited in utility.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm

Do you think Lindzen doesn’t know this, or is he lying to us?  It is one or the other and I find it quite unlikely that he does not know (unless he is chosing to remain ignorant to allow deniability)

Care to defend any of Lindzen’s misinformation?

As to correcting Lindzen’s misinformation, I don’t see any to correct.

The climate models ARE severely limited in utility. There’s so much science doesn’t know yet. It is, at present, impossible to build a reliable climate model.

Hey Tartly, sorry again about using “historical” references; the internet isn’t perfect. Bt if you have any fresher information on how much the coal lobby is paying Lindzen (or anyone else) in consulting fees, please feel free to file it here at your leisure.

Link to a LINDZEN article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

This is from July 2, 2006. Thats a little newer than 11 years, but maybe I got the question wrong.

Its pure denial. He says the glaciers are advancing and the ice sheets are growing, yet we measure them and see the runoff. Its got to be pure lies.
quote:
“global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.”
// K - what do you say to that? Isn’t the agreed statistic more like 2.C in a fairly steady upwards trend since 1800? [fudging the time scale to one that suits him, and it is not used by the scientists?] And that ‘the heating has not really started yet’ being a major point - its the forecast that is concerning.

He uses confusion, distraction, and then this:
quote: “Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this “debate” actually is in the first place.”
//

Yes, there really is such a group. There is also a consensus - all those that signed that statement.
WTF? Does it make ANY sense?