Leading MIT Scientist Says Global Warmists Are Like Quacks!! What Does This Say About Dems' IQ?

Question

World Class climatoligist Richard Lindzen of MIT:


"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?"[7]

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 Four. The film was critical of the IPCC and many scientific opinions on climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Don't be afraid to use Google and LEARN about beliefs of EXPERTS. Be open minded. And, by all means LEARN.

Answer 1

Bush thinks global warming is real and is caused by humans.

So does McCain, Giuliani, Brownback, and even Newt Gingrich.

So my question to you, is why do you imagine that the Republican party agrees with you on this issue. They have long since taken off their tin-foil hats. Perhaps you should as well.

Answer 2

The MIT scientist does make a good point but I don't see that he disagrees that global warming isn't happening. He may disagree with the solutions being offered. That's what I get from it. I'm not a scientist but I have taken science courses at the collegiate level. I recall that my professor in Chemistry explained why scientists are talking about greenhouse gases and the affect they have. Science is based on the available evidence. It takes a lot to get scientists to agree so when you have the world's top scientists saying that there is a problem, you should listen.
This is why a broad group of people from diverse backgrounds are needed to discuss possible solutions. No one should simply rely on someone else to come up with it.
This MIT guy is absolutely correct. Don't just accept someone else's word for it. Check into it yourself as best you can.
I'm going to trust a democrat before I trust a republican.
The democrats running for President seem to have gone to better schools? That's what I got when I was checking. But granted, I don't have the top 25 colleges memorized by any means. You make a good point that we should keep learning and I would add, thinking. Asking questions. Try to find the answers. You should have more questions than answers. That's the sign of a truly intelligent and smart person.

Answer 3

Richard Lindzen also stated a couple decades ago, that there was no evidence to suggest cigarette smoking was related to lung cancer, then the tobacco company research popped out suggesting that it was.
He also held the belief that particles in the air did not cause respitory problems, in defense of all the companies pumping huge amounts of industrial smog into our air.

Most experts hold the belief that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is nothing but a nice peice of marketing and propaganda, nothing more.
There are more flaws in the statments contained in that movie, than In Al Gore's.

Answer 4

It was reported that he wanted 50:1 odd in his favor on a bet that temp will decline, but he later said it was about 50:50...then he wanted to bet that the temp would only rise ).4 deg C....looks like he agrees with global warming, but just thinks the temp rise will be less than the mainstream scientific community

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree. Annan offered to pay if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only take 50 to 1 odds on global temperatures in 20 years being lower than they are now.

Lindzen replied to Annan "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."[17]

Lindzen offered Annan an alternative bet. If the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C and 0.4 °C the bet would be off. And if the temperature change were 0.4 °C or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds.[18]

Answer 5

There are some scientist that question how much effect humans have on global warming, but even they say global warming is occurring, just can't say how much humans are to blame.
I would rather we make efforts to combat global warming and find out in 20 years its not caused by man, than do nothing and find find out in 20 years we have done irreversible damage.

Right now we have more proof of man made global warming than Bush had proof of WMDs in Iraq before the war.

Answer 6

First of all I would point out that he is one against many, so why would his viewpoint be the best one to listen to? Then I would note that the link you gave also points out that he is a paid consultant to the oil and coal industry, so his opinions would have to be regarded as questionable at best.

Answer 7

You are HILARIOUS!!!!!

This, coming from a dude that said smoking didn't lead to lung cancer or heart disease.

Maybe you should Google something about your Christian Conservatives....those "Faith Healers" you totally support.

L.O.L.

Answer 8

I seriously doubt the validity of any statement made by the same man that claimed cigarette smoke does NOT cause cancer.

He was well paid by big tobacco for his services... I'm sure big oil has cut him just as hefty a check.

Answer 9

WoW you found 1 who agrees with you viewpoint, must have been hard. to find one.
By the way what do the majority of his constituents say?

Answer 10

What is even more repulsive is that if you are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change you are labeled a denier.

The implication is that if you don't sign on to the anarchist's dream of a dismantled industrial complex you are equated with a holocaust denier.
It's revolting and ignorant.