Is there anyone who's mind isn't made up about Climategate?

I'm often asked if there are any unbiased sources for climate theory.  Actually here's a source who I think it credible, makes some good points and is pretty balanced--MIT's Richard Lindzen wrote this piece for the Wall Street Journal this week.  He's skeptical, but he's not shrill and since he's a professor of Meteorology at MIT, it's hard to argue that he's not qualified. 

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Comments

[Ben Kalafut]

Lindzen has been caught slandering his colleagues (with a loony conspiracy theory debunked by his own existance) and telling outright lies umpteen times. Moreover he's one of those scientists so very personally attached to a plausible but somewhat fringe thesis that he cannot be taken as representative of any middle ground. In brief he has a "hunch" about negative feedbacks, the "iris hypothesis" that is neither supported by nor outright falsified by the literature,

He has most certainly made contributions to climate science, but his willingness to bring up irrelevancies, make nonsequitur arguments, ignore recent (past decade) developments, and exploit public misunderstanding--and bring up silly politics in his climate talks--makes him an unreliable source, probably more so than the "enthusiastic" Hansen or Jones. If you don't know what I mean about politics, dig up his slides from the faux-scientific-conference held by the Heartland Institute.

It'd be better for you to either read papers or the (cautious by design) IPCC report than to rely on the "word" of any single scientist. Note that the IPCC report--as revealed by this "climategate" baloney--even includes junk science papers by would-be "skeptics", published in journals like Energy and Environment because the authors refuse to meet the quality standards of real journals, in its discussion. That's not fair, that's generous.

But since you're in Arizona, I very much recommend calling on Jon Overpeck instead. Just tell him who you are and suggest lunch or something similar. If you find reading papers to be difficult, one-on-one with an active researcher (without Lindzen's oddities) will get you far.

[Winnie]

So, things are only true if they come from an attractive, non-mad-scientist-looking researcher? Greg is looking for an unbiased source, and Ben's comments themselves are biased.

[Nick]

CHECK THE BIAS HERE!

Eighteen months ago, the Chicago Climate Exchange was riding high as the planets seemed to be aligning for the only national carbon-trading venue in the US.
The price of the carbon-emission permits traded on the exchange was at an historic peak of $7.40 a tonne.
Volumes and prices on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) have collapsed, with emissions permits now trading at historic lows of between 10 cents and 15 cents per tonne. That reflects the pervasive uncertainty over what kind of carbon regime the US might have and the CCX role within it.

[Nick]

Ben,

Every day when I watch Telly I observe
some Liberal making the claim that the
last decade had the highest temperatures
ever.

Not true.

Dr. Richard Keen, University of Colorado
debunks the NCAR Meehl etal study of record highs and lows that cherry-picked the starting year as 1950.

"MORE THAN HALF of the state and provincial maximum temperature records were set during the single decade of the 1930’s, and only 29 percent of these records were set since 1950. This means that by considering temperatures after 1950, Meehl et al. removed most of the really good heat records from the data pool, and artificially inflated the number of maximum temperature records (and thus, the max to min ratio). In other words, many of the maximum temperature records since 1950 would not be daily records for the entire period of record for these stations.
Since 1940 minimum records have outnumbered maximum records by a ratio of 3 to 2 (or 1.5 to 1, if you prefer). Meehl et al. achieved opposite ratios by removing the extremes of the 1930’s."

Greg.

It would be a blast if you could present
the Richard Keen chart.

[Nick]

Gore stiffs 3000 ticket holders in
Kopenhagen.

Many Gore admirers paid $1200 clams
for a ticket.

Gore to refund clams since he decided
to reduce his Carbon footprint by not
facing any critics in Daneland.

[Nick]

Ben,

Did you read any climgate e-mail?

I read one of the warmers wanted to
produce black and blue on a skeptic.(beating)

Another warmer wished a skeptic would
die.

I will take Linden!

[Naum]

Oh yeah, Lindzen, a man who pockets $2,500 a day from the likes of Exxon-Mobil…

[cli]

The question is should the United States be taxing our future into oblivion, based upon a premise that we can actually halt climate change by reducing carbon emissions??? Mankind can only have a minimal effect on the climate, so why should the United States policy and taxes, be driven by these un-proven theories, that are looking more and more faulty by the day. Even if global warming, or climate-change-by-man were real, it is ridiculous to tax ourselves to death over something that we cannot fix. That is the real issue.

[B. Kalafut]

@Naum:

Lindzen is a libelous, conspiracy-theory-creating nut, but AFAIK he's one of the few not raking it in from Exxon or the Kuwaiti government (etc.)

On the science he's seemingly sincere but if one takes the time to read the primary literature it's evident that his is a "marginal" view. More than any other living scientist, he reminds me of what Thomas Kuhn had to say about old men.

@Winnie: Of course my comments are "biased". I read the technical literature, not so much as in my own field, but enough to spot BS: I have a bias against junk argument and misrepresentation of the state of the science (especially at the coarse level). Would you call that a bad thing? Is it preferable to be naive or ignorant? Didn't think so.

Arizona has no shortage of climate experts. If for some reason you're reluctant to call Peck, Chris Castro is probably also a good choice, esp. if you want to talk modeling.

But of course, expect (evil, evil, bad, bad!) bias ten times stronger than mine; an expert who cannot form an opinion is worthless.

[todd]

Ben
At least in the 90's Lindzen was getting paid from Exxon, OPEC, etc. for doing consulting.

[K]

And Ben is a grad student at U of A -- shilling for his advisors and professors?

[JT]

Global warming or climate change, whatever the liberal fascists are calling it this week has nothing to do with planetary temperatures. Global warming is about money and control. The liberal fascists want to control every facet of our lives and make billions for themselves and their friends on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs will trade worthless carbon credits that have as much intrinsic value as a credit default swap on the adjustable subprime mortgage of an unemployed illegal alien criminal.

Global warming is the biggest fraud in the history of mankind. Bernie Madoff would be proud.

http://www.liberaldrivel.com

[Ben Kalafut]

LMAO @ anonymous coward "K". Search "google scholar" to figure out my field.

If Peck and/or Castro were paying me, that would be very odd.

@Todd: See the Sourcewatch piece on Lindzen. He argues like a "tobacco scientist", he spins conspiracy tales about his colleagues, but he doesn't appear to be shilling for anyone. An ignoble boor, yes, but if anyone is paying him to be one, both he and they conceal it very well. His rhetoric is that of a Singer or a Seitz but his motives not as transparent.

Read his Heartland Institute slides, however. Maybe he's an ideologue. Sounds like one.

[todd]

@Ben - the stuff on Lindzen in the 90's is from this article that appeared in Harpers:
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

It is actually educational to see how the same denialist pattern keeps repeating.

[ron]

All I need to know I get from my thermometer .. LOL

[Fred Mertz]

FWIW: Should be "whose" in headline.

[Ben Kalafut]

@todd:

Yes, that Harper's piece, resurfacing like climate denialist arguments...

[todd]

@ben is the Harper's piece not reliable?

[Nick]

Peter Landesman
"As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than thirty models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course, this is an issue only if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not, because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)"

[Nick]

Lindzen critics.

Let us look at Phil Jones.

The years 900-1300 AD were labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous Dark Ages to levels several degrees warmer than today.

A 1993 reconstruction from RS Bradley and Phil Jones himself that used 1400 AD as its base - effectively wiping the MWP off the radar-screen.

Who is the prone to fabrication?

[Nick]

Scientific debate.

Climategate Professor to Skeptic on Live BBC TV: “What an assh*le!” declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot’s executive editor Marc Morano. A clearly agitated Watson had earlier shouted to Morano “will you shut up.”

Move on. Nothing to see at Climgate.

[Nick]

More fraud.

The massive amount of Profit Al Gore
has from his connection with the
venture capital offices in the Sand Hill Road area of Palo Alto, Kalifornia.

[Nick]

Volumes and prices on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) have collapsed, with emissions permits now trading at historic lows of between 10 cents and 15 cents per tonne.

The CCX was formed with a grant by the Joyce Foundation while Obama was a board member from 1998 to 2001.

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange–the rest of the story
3.25.09 / Judi McLeod / Canadian Free Press

Obama, Maurice Strong, Al Gore key players cashing in on Chicago Climate Exchange
March 30, 2009 — Stefan Fobes

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange–the rest of the story
3.25.09 / Judi McLeod / Canadian Free Press

Good news to know that the truth will always out–even when you’re Barack Obama.

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange
The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership.