Lindzen
stoat | June 15, 2011For a fair while now I've defended Lindzen {{cn}} on the grounds that he is actually a Real Scientist, albeit edging ever further off onto the sceptical wing. And this has been difficult because whilst his papers have, I think, been reasonable his public pronouncements and his congressional-testimony type stuff has been poor.
But, happily, the recent "peer review gate" nonsense he has been spouting allows me to declare him Emeritus. I was going to say he has jumped the shark but I think that is wrong; this isn't some Curry-like stupidity, this is more the kind of full blown Black-helipcopters…
tlambert | April 22, 20112GB have continued their practice of never talking to mainstream climate scientists with an interview with Richard Lindzen. It's hard to pick Lindzen's biggest whopper. Richard Littlemore thinks it is Lindzen's untruth that there is no evidence for any change in polar ice sheets. Skeptical Science points to Lindzen's untruth that the Earth has warmed much less than the models predicted. But then there's also Lindzen's untruth that all scientists agree that climate sensitivity is just 1 degree for a doubling of CO2.
Richard Littlemore thinks that Lindzen is showing an "increasing…
tlambert | October 18, 2010Andrew Dessler sends me a link to his debate with Richard Lindzen. I agree with Dessler's assessment that Lindzen's case was very weak. Watch it and make up your own mind.
Dessler also sends me a link to his new paper that demonstrates that the claims of Paltridge et al (2009) (touted at Climate Audit) that specific humidity was decreasing in the the mid to upper tropical troposphere were spurious.
tlambert | April 24, 2010The Australian renews its war on science by printing an opinion piece by Richard Lindzen. Arthur Smith comments:
From his latest piece one can only conclude that either Lindzen has descended into the epistemic closure of paranoia and conspiracy theories that has become far too prevalent among some Americans lately or, worse, that he is consciously participating in the malicious disinformation campaign on climate that has recently been extensively documented by Greenpeace and elsewhere
Smith gives a detailed analysis of how he came to this conclusion.
Marc Ambinder also weighs in:
"Climate…
illconsidered | April 24, 2010Richard Lindzen has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal for Earth Day and exhibits the best of climate denialism's ability to flip reality on its head. I was considering going through it and highlighting its many falsehoods and logical holes but Arthur Smith has done a fine job of it already.
The WSJ op-ed is behind a paywall, but if you click the first result in this google search, you can read it in full. Arthur's take down is here.
tlambert | June 26, 2006Judd Legum has already debunked Richard Lindzen's repetition of Benny Peiser's discredited study, but I want to add one point. Lindzen wrote:
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that…
tlambert | May 15, 2006Richard Lindzen has jumped on Bob Carter's global warming stopped in 1998 bandwagon.
Here's one slide from a presentation he gave at right-wing Swedish think tank.
In the text he claims that that there has been almost no rise since 1986, but in his talk (at 38:00) he told the audience to ignore the red line (which shows the ten year mean) and pointed to the graph on the bottom right of just the last eight years. Presumably he meant to write that there had been no rise since 1998. I must give him points for brazenness by doing a blatant cherry pick right in front of his audience. They…
tlambert | March 6, 2004 Last month I wrote about how junkscience.com and The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were fronts set up by tobacco companies to oppose regulatioon of smoking. Chris Mooney published a very interesting article in the Washington Post on the use of the phrase "sound science" by other industry funded groups to oppose government regulation.
Iain Murray then attacked Mooney, accusing him of misrepresentation, distortion and double-speak. Mooney has replied here, in my opinion thoroughly destroying Murray's arguments.
I've been reluctant to write anything about the climate change debate…