Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.""
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
What if the good Dr.'s views are not correct? What would "he" say about that? ""If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something". That is what he said..hmmmm . does that mean that in 50 years we can correct the problem? No, we probably could not. So, does anyone else have an opinion on The good Dr.? ==
"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to (the) level of hilarious incoherence," Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. "They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."
In 2012, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science."
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BDGI, are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church?
3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Veritas, I'm generally not concerned about agrees/disagrees and how they make me "feel."
What I said was that I provided another comment to the other 50+ on this "dumb" poll and THAT felt great. EOS
4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
locomotive Sep-26-13 12:42 PM
Wow! Must make your feel...right?
I'ld say, consider the button pushers!
Sure, 50+ comments on any "dumb" poll question can be enough, but I thought we were actually TALKING about science, politics, global warming aka climate change, and the various viewpoints of these issues.
There. I just added another comment to this "dumb" poll question.
5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Just two that came up with a "climate change cloud cover" google search...
livescience . com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover
This author is not convinced that "cloud cover" research debunks climate change theory.
meteora . ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb . pdf
This presentation of date was being prepared for publication. Two "opinions" from the piece: "there is not yet enough information to attribute the cloud trends to anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming" and "cloud changes since 1952 have had a net cooling effect on the Earth."
Like I said, they're all punting. Big Time.
This entire issue of climate change has huge political motivations within it. When the politics are removed, like we won't be facing higher taxes, I'll reconsider looking at the science.
Until then, it's a two-headed monster, politics & science, not traditional science.
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Matt, if I only knew who "those people" were, I might be on board...
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
QUICKLY! CRUSH "THOSE PEOPLE", BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
rajii is not too good at math either as his post was number 55. You get a smiley face for trying anyway. :-)
I believe 53 comments on this dumb poll question is enough.
Students, shall we explore oxidation- reduction next? That will be so much fun. First let's just light em up.
3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"....it's not rocket science." and you are no rocket scientist either.
Now with that the science experience comes to an end. Third grade science at it's best.
Take a match and drop it in a milk bottle and place a hard boiled egg on the lid. Students tell us just what will happen? Markie, you tried but you will still get a smiley face. :-)
Centerfield you are OH SO smart us underlings are just in awe of your great intellect!! Oh by the way natural gas is a fossil fuel too ! IDIOT!!
Light a match and set it in a jar, and put the lid on and see what happens...the temperature increases and oxygen is depleted....it's not rocket science.
Notsocenterfield, based on your theories, you think fossil fuel prices will come down? You just said it was all about the dollar.
Anyway, we all now coal fired power plants killed the dinosaurs and melted the glacier that was on top of my yard. Also, do some research on your weather, weather goes in cycles and is no worse now than it was during the droughts of the 30's and hurricanes and tornadoes of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Remember Hurricane Hazel in 1954 for example? How about the Tornado Super outbreak of April 3 and 4 1974 with (confirmed) 37 F1, 31 F2, 35 F3, 23 F4 and 7 F4 tornadoes in 48 hours. Tell me how it is different now?
CFLD: Correct. They have actually bought and closed refineries (one in Williston during the 70's) to control the supply and thus the price of gas/deisel. If they never attempt to build--how could they know how tough the regs are? In ND they said it is easier to start small and expand later. Oil lies too much 4 me. "It's safe" and then we saw the Gulf spill. Since 1973 they have designed the system for their max profit benefit but will not admit it. Major stations retail is virtually the same price at every station in any city--but there is no price fixing. They said alcohol would not survive without a subsidy--it has. Prince William Sound is still contaminated (shoreline). They do not fix the damage they cause.
2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Top scientists say . . ."
More shameless BS from the MDN.
This isn't a newspaper -- it's a megaphone for the lunatic talking points of the far right nutjobs.
4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I'm 95% certain that skepticism isn't the same thing as being contrarian.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Surprise, surprise, loco. But, it is hard to open a closed mind. So sorry for you.
1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
95% certainty equals total consensus and I'm a dummy not to accept it? I thought skepticism was an appropriate practice, but obviously not with the climate change theory.
Well, thanks for your opinions, people, but my opinion stays the same as when I started.
5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Now I'm 95% sure the 7 Malware attacks I've had in the last 2 days with attachments to mdn/opinion///are not good for my computer...How about yours...Only happens when I'm logged in...Later!
2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Gosh, whistle, if anyone has their wedgie on, it is you. I only presented facts and explanations from those facts. You, instead, provide a paragraph of attack and put downs. Wow, talk about upset. Just because you cannot defend your comments with intellectual rhetoric is not my fault. You keep it up and you will be down there with dusty and BDGI for lacking credibility and integrity. Now, your second paragraph is exactly what we are talking about. For well over 100 years, we are polluting the atmosphere with by-products of fossil fuel consumption. But, you don't think that will affect the climate... Poor you. I think the money end of it is proving you wrong already. Look at the demand for electricity from coal... Going down and natural gas is replacing coal as a cheaper alternative. As alternative energy builds, it will put pressure on the fossil fuels to come down in price. But, being a righty, you could not comprehend that concept.
0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
billdoesntgetit Sep-25-13 2:48 PM
"To bad you young pups don't know how to read about the past in the world.."
Yeah that's right bdgi...We're way past your continued study of phonics...
3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900