Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_DoubtingThomas]

Here https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3604.

It was a good debate. The video was uploaded in April.

[_Water Dog]

Uh. What debate did you watch? Lindzen laid the whole panel to waste. It was a fairly silly debate, without proper time to really get into much of anything. A bad format. A bad moderator. Lindzen was very on point and focused on the science, while the others were playing “F” “F” games. Daniel Schrag was the only one on the pro global warming side of the debate that had anything interesting or relevant to say. Lawrence Krauss seemed like a literal idiot, a typical wonky theoretical physicist, a head case, trying to sound smart, dabbling in conspiracy theories, but obviously didn't know what he was talking about. Pretentious nitwit. Mario Molina, good god, more evidence that Nobel winners are some of the most insufferable people on the planet. Oh, and for an expert, he sure did avoid any discussions of the actual science and did nothing more than lob insults and make appeals to authority. Lindzen systematically and calmly eviscerated him while Molina was visibly rattled by his inability to say anything intelligent. Lindzen tells him how he's wrong, his response is to start convulsing and yell, "SHUT UP." LOL!

[_Gunnar]

Uh. What debate did you watch? Lindzen laid the whole panel to waste. It was a fairly silly debate, without proper time to really get into much of anything. A bad format. A bad moderator. Lindzen was very on point and focused on the science, while the others were playing “F” “F” games. Daniel Schrag was the only one on the pro global warming side of the debate that had anything interesting or relevant to say. Lawrence Krauss seemed like a literal idiot, a typical wonky theoretical physicist, a head case, trying to sound smart, dabbling in conspiracy theories, but obviously didn't know what he was talking about. Pretentious nitwit. Mario Molina, good god, more evidence that Nobel winners are some of the most insufferable people on the planet. Oh, and for an expert, he sure did avoid any discussions of the actual science and did nothing more than lob insults and make appeals to authority. Lindzen systematically and calmly eviscerated him while Molina was visibly rattled by his inability to say anything intelligent. Lindzen tells him how he's wrong, his response is to start convulsing and yell, "SHUT UP." LOL!

Richard Lindzen is a known liar who is funded by the fossil fuel industry, and lies (or has lied) about that:

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[1] He is funded by fossil fuel interests, such as Peabody Coal.[2]

Lindzen is perhaps best known for his "Iris hypothesis", which proposed that, like the iris of an eye, the earth's cloud systems will act to lessen global warming. Other climate researchers believe that further research has not supported this hypothesis;[3]

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying.

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] 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."[7]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments

An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[9].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[10]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."[11]

Lindzen has also testified on the behalf of the Tobacco Industry that there is no credible link between smoking and lung cancer:

On Tobacco

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[13] James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data." [14]

What greater proof does anyone need than that that Lindzen is willing to lie on the behalf of corporate interests willing to fund him?


See also:

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that 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."

("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

[_Gunnar]

Here is some more on Dr. Lindzen's ties to fossil fuel corporate interests:

Background

Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. He is the Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science. [2], [3], [76], [77]

Lindzen's academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT. [3]

The Cato Institute, a conservaive think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. [4], [5]

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US.” [6]

In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [58], [59], [62]

Fossil Fuel Funding

As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94]

In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015. [98]

[_Water Dog]

Gunnar, you got taken to the woodshed the last time you did this, with Kavanaugh. You couldn't demonstrate a single lie told by him. And here we are again. Source Watch is a well known lefty activist smear site. They lie. So here we go, just like last time, I'm starting with the first accusation.

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying.

It took me but a few minutes to vet this claim, and it's a lie.

First, the odd wording. Lindzen wrote, "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government."

I did a double take on this. Lindzen wrote "his research." Why would he refer to himself in the third person? I don't think Lindzen wrote that at all, Newsweek staffers did.

Nevertheless. Is the statement false? Not that I can tell.

This op-ed is from 2007.

Lindzen retired from MIT in 2013. Was Lindzen's research, at any time while he was an active professor at MIT, or prior to 2007, funded by Peabody? Not that I can tell.

Did Lindzen ever do any work on behalf of Peabody? Yes, he did. When? In 2016. Which is what is revealed by the bankruptcy disclosure.

Lindzen, in 2007, didn't lie about anything.

As for the argument of bias and money interests, how does that argument not equally apply to climate change proponents? Meet Al Gore, the world's first "carbon billionaire." Look at all the kickbacks these greenie companies are getting, like Tesla and Elon Musk. This is like arguing the Q15 don't have a financial interest because they turn their assets over to the church. They were already rich. Blah blah. Yah, okay. Climate research dollars are through the roof due to all this warming hysteria. Look at all the people filling their pockets with money on renewables.

You've got wind farms in west Texas driving up energy costs for people all over the state. If you watch the wholesale market, you can see realtime pricing extremes in the negative at various times throughout the year. NEGATIVE. This means energy on the wholesale market is literally free. Not just free, but negative, generators are spending money to dump power on the grid that they aren't being compensated for. It's bananas. And it's caused by the wind farms, which are tax subsidized. In order to get their tax subsidies, they have to meet certain production quotas. In order to meet those quotas, they'll dump energy onto the grid, at a loss, when no demand for it exists. They'll sell their energy for free. Simply because they need to reach some MWh quota. Then what happens, is other providers, like the nuclear power plant, lose money. The nuclear power plant can't shutdown entirely. It is always running at some minimum amount. So then they get undercut by opportunist businessmen stuffing their pockets with political dollars, in order to create the illusion that the wind farm is successful when in truth it's an epic failure. So the nuclear plant then loses money for all that energy they produced, that they couldn't charge anyone for. Can you guess what happens next? Well, they have to stay in business, right? That loss has to be passed on to the customer. So they raise their prices.

You think those businessmen who are stuffing their pockets with these renewable dollars aren't kicking back some of those profits to their climate research buddies? LOL. You damn right they are. And they often don't even have to contribute to research directly. No need if your party happens to control the budget committee and can influence who gets those dollars. Climate scientists have a vested interest, their very job security, in finding problems that warrant further research. You've got this whole thing backwards.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Daniel Schrag was the only one on the pro global warming side of the debate that had anything interesting or relevant to say.

Daniel Schrag was the only climate scientist in the pro global warming side.

Lindzen tells him how he's wrong, his response is to start convulsing and yell, "SHUT UP." LOL!

For interrupting.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Lindzen was very on point and focused on the science

No he wasn't.

[_Water Dog]

No he wasn't.

Please post a transcript of the debate. Thanks.

[_DoubtingThomas]

No he wasn't.

Please post a transcript of the debate. Thanks.

For example

https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=2563

[_Gunnar]

Gunnar, you got taken to the woodshed the last time you did this, with Kavanaugh. You couldn't demonstrate a single lie told by him. And here we are again. Source Watch is a well known lefty activist smear site. They lie. So here we go, just like last time, I'm starting with the first accusation.

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying.

It took me but a few minutes to vet this claim, and it's a lie.

First, the odd wording. Lindzen wrote, "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government."

I did a double take on this. Lindzen wrote "his research." Why would he refer to himself in the third person? I don't think Lindzen wrote that at all, Newsweek staffers did.First, the odd wording. Lindzen wrote, "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government."

I did a double take on this. Lindzen wrote "his research." Why would he refer to himself in the third person? I don't think Lindzen wrote that at all, Newsweek staffers did.

SourceWatch was not quoting what Lindzen wrote directly. They quoted what Newsweek reported about what Lindzen wrote. That's why references to Lindzen were in the third person. I find nothing the slightest bit sinister about that.

Why did you ignore the fact that Lindzen was paid by Big Tobacco to deny the health hazards associated with smoking? Doesn't it give you at least a little bit of pause that he was willing to do that? Do you have any doubts that he was wrong, and very likely lying about that? If he really believed that himself, that casts legitimate doubt on his competence and/or honesty as a scientific researcher.

Lindzen also defended Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, who was disgraced for trying dishonestly to hide the fact of being funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to Defend Denier-for-Hire Soon in ‘Wall Street Journal’

Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor and longtime climate contrarian, turned to the Wall Street Journal to rehash a series of oft-disproved claims that deny the growing and now unequivocal evidence of climate change, all in defense of a fellow “skeptic.”
03/06/2015 03:28 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017


Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor and longtime climate contrarian, turned to the Wall Street Journal to rehash a series of oft-disproved claims that deny the growing and now unequivocal evidence of climate change, all in defense of a fellow “skeptic” whose ties to fossil fuels have called into question the impartiality of his science.

Lindzen’s arguments are a greatest-hits of climate denial, repeatedly and effectively disproved for years. He uses these easily dismissed arguments to defend what’s left of the academic integrity of Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon against questions raised by members of Congress, who heard testimony from Soon without disclosure that he was being paid by fossil-fuel interests.

Lindzen’s writing contained multiple errors or omissions. He:
Ignored the accuracy of climate models over the long term
Confused the impact of the sun on observed warming, long studied and long ago disregarded
Dismissed multiple lines of evidence by claiming clouds would offset warming
Glossed over the egregious breach of ethics in Soon’s lack of disclosure of over $1 million in funding from fossil fuel interests
Mischaracterized as threatening an attempt to identify improper industry influence on studies and Congressional testimony

Mainstream models have been accurate, Lindzen hasn’t.

Lindzen makes the tired and debunked claim that predictions of warming haven’t been accurate. This is absurd on its face, as 2014 was the hottest year on record, with an unprecedented spike in ocean temperatures. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that model criticisms are totally “unfounded“ and that models incorporating the newest information (mainly ocean heat content) are very accurate. Interestingly, comparisons have been made between Lindzen’s 1989 predictions and those made in 1988 by James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The results are clear that mainstream scientists have gotten it right while Lindzen underestimated warming.

Solar output has decreased as temperatures rise

Lindzen vaguely refers to studies on the role of the sun in driving climate, which is exactly the subject that fossil fuel interests paid Soon to pursue. This is another absurdity, because the amount of energy the sun has sent our way in recent years has actually decreased as temperatures have increased.

Congress should know who’s sponsoring testimony


Lindzen attempts to redirect attention away from the clear wrongdoing of Soon to the actions of Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, who sent letters to seven universities inquiring as to the funding of other witnesses used by the GOP to argue against climate action. As Grijalva states in his letters, this information is vital to disclose because Congress “cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.”

This is not an isolated incident, so Rep. Grijalva has reason to be concerned. As outlined in multiple books (and now a documentary film) the tobacco industry pioneered a method for disputing scientific reality for the purpose of preventing regulation, and the fossil fuel industry has been following this playbook since the 1990s. This strategy involves paying scientists to produce studies contrary to the consensus, testify to Congress disputing the established body of science, and otherwise introduce doubt into the public consciousness where none exists in the scientific literature. This is exactly the behavior of which Soon is guilty, so Rep. Grijalva was right to be concerned about a more widespread coordination of pseudoscientific lobbying against regulations.

Lindzen also writes that he finds it strange that others sent letters to think tanks that promote climate denial, as though he’s unaware of the bombshell 2013 study that shed light on the $120 million given to anti-climate groups between 2002 and 2010.

Finally, Lindzen ends with one of the newest fossil fuel talking points, which claims that reducing emissions will somehow hurt the poor. This too is clearly contradicted by the fact that the poorest are least capable of adapting to a changing climate, and those who are actually bringing power to the impoverished are doing so with renewables, not fossil fuels. For example, India’s Prime Minister has a goal to bring electricity to all of India using renewables, not fossil fuels.