Zach LarkinsKYOTO XII
Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on global warming cringe at the thought of disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled. They do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus. Dr. Richard Lindzen is an exception. He takes his protests about the abuse of science to the public, to the press, and to government. And his detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe because Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world. He is a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global warming as an issue of paramount importance. In other words, just the type of man the likes of Gore and Suzuki don't want you to listen to.
Lindzen prides himself on the contribution he and his colleagues have made to the IPCC and is more than a bit disappointed in the way it is misrepresented. He says, "Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored." These unscientific summaries are often written to further political or business agendas and then become the basis of public understanding. The ‘science is settled' crowd will tell you that ex-Veep Gore and Suzuki have no political agenda, but a true scientist knows the science will never be settled and looks forward to continuing debate on the subject of global warming. Gore and Suzuki don't.
Lindzen provided the IPCC committee with the summary that was created for Chapter 7, which he and his colleagues had worked on. "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport," the summary stated, creating the impression that the climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists indicated just the opposite. Lindzen testified that the scientists had "found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those of clouds and water vapor." Stung by this criticism that the summaries were being written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary. The final version, when later released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the draft that scientists had seen. "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," it read. Yet the draft was rife with qualifiers making it clear the science was very much in doubt because "the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."
Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked gives one reason to be circumspect. "Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements," he said. The White House stepped in and asked the National Academy of Sciences, the country's premier scientific organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of the panel, which included Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled. "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)," they said.
Of course the press reported on this and, in particular, CNN, in the typical language of other reportage, stated that it represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." I read an article today wherein the author quoted CNN extensively as her source. I wrote to the editor of the paper and suggested she do a little more homework before writing the claptrap she did. Every example she gave of the impending doom of global warming has already been discredited by respected scientists. Yet she seems to think CNN is the final word in this debate.
However, Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who side with the likes of Gore and Suzuki are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse," he says, "Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
Sources: Lawrence Solomon The Deniers Pt V The Financial Post.
Lindzen prides himself on the contribution he and his colleagues have made to the IPCC and is more than a bit disappointed in the way it is misrepresented. He says, "Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored." These unscientific summaries are often written to further political or business agendas and then become the basis of public understanding. The ‘science is settled' crowd will tell you that ex-Veep Gore and Suzuki have no political agenda, but a true scientist knows the science will never be settled and looks forward to continuing debate on the subject of global warming. Gore and Suzuki don't.
Lindzen provided the IPCC committee with the summary that was created for Chapter 7, which he and his colleagues had worked on. "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport," the summary stated, creating the impression that the climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists indicated just the opposite. Lindzen testified that the scientists had "found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those of clouds and water vapor." Stung by this criticism that the summaries were being written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary. The final version, when later released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the draft that scientists had seen. "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," it read. Yet the draft was rife with qualifiers making it clear the science was very much in doubt because "the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."
Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked gives one reason to be circumspect. "Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements," he said. The White House stepped in and asked the National Academy of Sciences, the country's premier scientific organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of the panel, which included Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled. "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)," they said.
Of course the press reported on this and, in particular, CNN, in the typical language of other reportage, stated that it represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." I read an article today wherein the author quoted CNN extensively as her source. I wrote to the editor of the paper and suggested she do a little more homework before writing the claptrap she did. Every example she gave of the impending doom of global warming has already been discredited by respected scientists. Yet she seems to think CNN is the final word in this debate.
However, Lindzen fights on, defending the science at what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who side with the likes of Gore and Suzuki are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the U.S. alone. "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse," he says, "Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
Sources: Lawrence Solomon The Deniers Pt V The Financial Post.
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Too many people cry 'free speech' then castigate anyone who tries to offer an alternative view.
We are all entitled to our opinion and to voice it in the public domain, unless one is shown to be a charlatan, and having no interest in truth.
You have a difficult task and I wish you well with it. This is an excellent post.
katyzzz
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern