Date: Mon Mar 9 17:22:47 2009

Author: Bernard Cleyet

Subject: Re: Climate Change - Is it Controversial?

Post:

I've cross posted, as I wish a broader opinion on this matter.



The below the ------- is from the Wiki. article on Richard Lindzen.
He is one of the keynote speakers of the present controversial
conference.

I am extremely disturbed by the apparent punishment of critics of
anthropogenic climate change. As long as this happens, I cannot
accept that the question is answered. When the government, et al.
funds critics w/ "good" credentials, e.g. R. L., then the question
may be resolved, until then I lump the IPCC, et al. along w/ the Bush
administration as enemies of science. Reminds me of the Soviet
attack on Vavilov.

bc does believe (note the word) in the A. of GCC.

p.s. I do note that, as pointed out by a tap-ler, that the conference
is mainly sponsored by capitalist interests and the mean political
interests.

----------------------------------



Criticism of IPCC

He frequently speaks out against the IPCC position that significant
global warming is very likely caused by humans (see global warming)
although he accepts that the warming has occurred, saying global mean
temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century
ago.[5]

His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this
quotation: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if
you?re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong
answer, and you have to accept that because you don?t have another
wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it?s like quackery in
medicine ? if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer
and you say that?s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest
something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with
jelly beans?"[6]

Lindzen was one of several scientists who appeared in The Great
Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that aired in the UK in March,
2007 on Channel 4. The film was critical of the IPCC and many
scientific opinions on climate change. The film has been criticized
for misuse of data and out of date research, for using misleading
arguments, and for misrepresenting the position of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[7][8][9][10]

He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in
which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research
director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning
the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen,
former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was
tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal
industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian
professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the
debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for
raising questions."[11]

---------------------------------



On 2009, Mar 09, , at 13:09, John Hubisz wrote:

> Any scientist who does work in the field with results that do not
> agree with the politically-held belief finds that funding stops. I
> know of none who would classify global warming as a fraud. Most
> claim that it is a natural phenomenon that we can readily manage
> without these outrageous proposals that are guaranteed to weaken
> our society.
> Many will argue (economists especially) that this is too much like
> opening a walnut with a sledge hammer. (I am sure I could think of
> something better, but I have other things to do.)
>
> John
>
> trappe@physics.utexas.edu wrote:
>> Perhaps the following article will underscore the NON-scientific
>> aspects of the upcoming meeting. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/
>> science/earth/09climate.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all
>>
>> I am curious about John's implied meaning to scientists retiring
>> and finishing out grants as an explanation for their new-found
>> scientific knowledge of global warming as a fraud. Sounds more
>> like "don't confuse me with facts, my minds already made up"...Karl
>>
>>
>> Quoting John Hubisz :
>>
>>> *Someone said,
>>>
>>> (Yes, it is cut and dry for the majority of scientists - but it
>>> is not so
>>> for the general public.)*
>>>
>>> *I responded,
>>>
>>> That is not true.* There are at least 32,000 scientists (9000
>>> physicists) who do not think that it is "cut and dry" and more
>>> are joining them as as scientists retire and finish out grants.
>>>
>>> And if the general public includes weathermen/meteorologists and
>>> economists that adds to the group.
>>>
>>> John Hubisz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Norwood wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Taplers,
>>>>
>>>> I thought there was no remaining question
>>>>
>>>> that we are threatened by climate change
>>>>
>>>> that will do major physical and economic damage
>>>>
>>>> if we don't change our ways.
>>>>
>>>> But these guys, involved in the March 8-10, New York,
>>>>
>>>> International Conference on Climate Change,
>>>>
>>>> including some physicists, don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175921/posts
>>>>
>>>> Anybody got insight?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Bill Norwood, U of MD at College Park
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>



Back