This quote sums it up best: “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”


BOSTON (CBS) — A new proposal on climate change focuses on public health, energy, transportation and basic infrastructure.

Under the plan unveiled Tuesday, $40 million will go to help cities and towns in Massachusetts shore up the power supply and keep the lights on.

Ten million will be earmarked for the coast, to protect it from rising sea levels.

But will it work?

While Gov. Deval Patrick and others painted a dire picture of what global warming might do to us, others are more skeptical.

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.
e changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he
“Thtold WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.

“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mi...slow-down/

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

No need to open your link. It is in the NY Times for heaven's sake. All that has to be said.

(01-16-2014 12:10 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

No need to open your link. It is in the NY Times for heaven's sake. All that has to be said.

If we're going to reject information based on its source, I'm going to call you out for posting anything from Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts from now on.

(01-16-2014 12:12 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:10 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

No need to open your link. It is in the NY Times for heaven's sake. All that has to be said.

If we're going to reject information based on its source, I'm going to call you out for posting anything from Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts from now on.

Fair enough. I opened and read it. What I expected.

(01-16-2014 12:23 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:12 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:10 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

No need to open your link. It is in the NY Times for heaven's sake. All that has to be said.

If we're going to reject information based on its source, I'm going to call you out for posting anything from Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts from now on.

Fair enough. I opened and read it. What I expected.

Steven goddard's site is fun to browse. So many people asking why their comments are getting deleted by Steven.

Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, please read the post slowly and without jumping to conclusions.

The MIT prof does not deny that global warming is occurring. What he does suggest is that it is not a catastrophe like some would have us believe. He also, in my opinion correctly, identifies the political nature of the "cause." This is consistent with the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus.

Let's cut to the bone on the global warming (or climate change) issue.

The truth is that the climate change extremists are not the least bit worried about what the temperature will be in 2090.

What climate change is about is a deep seated hatred of anything that produces profit and a desire to appropriate those profits for redistribution.

In the short run, the liberals desire to impose some sort of carbon tax, not to decrease carbon usage, which even Congress' failed Cap & Trade legislation never would have accomplished, but increase the flow of taxes and revenues in order to fund their goals of income redistribution. In a secondary, yet possibly more important effect, they seek to move the energy industry and all energy users, further under the control of the government.

Climate change is nothing but a veiled attempt to further the goals of socialism.

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

So a NYT writer is now a climate expert...as opposed to a MIT professor. Gotcha.

(01-16-2014 09:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

So a NYT writer is now a climate expert...as opposed to a MIT professor. Gotcha.

The person quoted is a UW professor.

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

If you knew anything or weren't a leftie, you'd know that the NYT is not a go-to source for understanding of an issue or the truth. But they are very good at propaganda and advocacy and have been for many decades. It is always on the side of left wing causes, too. Very consistent and they love the far left commies and socialists who embrace redistribution of wealth.

I posted an article recently by Lindzen where he called out the catastrophists in the climate science community and you responded by saying "he sounds reasonable." Now, you seem to be in the corner of a man who is anti-Lindzen.

Lindzen himself said that many in the AGW movement were upset with him because he has disputed some of their science and he is against alarmism, which he says is unwarranted. But apparently, your faith in your religion wasn't shaken a bit. Still posting pro-AGW stuff, I see. Somehow, I'll bet that Bretherton is not quite as accomplished in the field as Lindzen, either. Envy and ego.

Be nice if for once, you would share your OWN opinion on AGW, Gore-bull warming or climate change or whatever the preferred name of it is this year. Share your opinion, not a link to an article or study you read. Show us what you really think instead of trolling with no opinion.

(01-16-2014 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

If you knew anything or weren't a leftie, you'd know that the NYT is not a go-to source for understanding of an issue or the truth. But they are very good at propaganda and advocacy and have been for many decades. It is always on the side of left wing causes, too. Very consistent and they love the far left commies and socialists who embrace redistribution of wealth.

I posted an article recently by Lindzen where he called out the catastrophists in the climate science community and you responded by saying "he sounds reasonable." Now, you seem to be in the corner of a man who is anti-Lindzen.

Lindzen himself said that many in the AGW movement were upset with him because he has disputed some of their science and he is against alarmism, which he says is unwarranted. But apparently, your faith in your religion wasn't shaken a bit. Still posting pro-AGW stuff, I see. Somehow, I'll bet that Bretherton is not quite as accomplished in the field as Lindzen, either. Envy and ego.

Be nice if for once, you would share your OWN opinion on AGW, Gore-bull warming or climate change or whatever the preferred name of it is this year. Share your opinion, not a link to an article or study you read. Show us what you really think instead of trolling with no opinion.

You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have.

Anyways, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me, leave out the personal attacks. Calling me a leftie or saying that AGW is my religion is just petty. This isn't an issue of choosing sides for me, so don't expect me to stop posting pro-AGW material. It's intellectually dishonest to completely reject one side in favor of the other. Have I ever posted something saying that skepticism of climate science is stupid? That wouldn't make sense because I'm not even half convinced that predictive modelling can be certain.

(01-16-2014 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have..

Because none of them works (is anywhere near accurate). What they're measuring shows no warming in the past 15 years. D@mn, that's inconvenient. I also don't have a lot of confidence in their earth based temperatures due to siting, heat island effects, etc.

I believe that there are a number of climate variables that our scientists haven't yet discovered. You'll rarely get one to admit that what they don't know about the climate is at least as vast as what they do think they know. Hence, the models can't predict what will happen.

(01-16-2014 06:29 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have..

Because none of them works (is anywhere near accurate). What they're measuring shows no warming in the past 15 years. D@mn, that's inconvenient. I also don't have a lot of confidence in their earth based temperatures due to siting, heat island effects, etc.

I believe that there are a number of climate variables that our scientists haven't yet discovered. You'll rarely get one to admit that what they don't know about the climate is at least as vast as what they do think they know. Hence, the models can't predict what will happen.

You see, this is an issue where you have the same views as me, taken one step further. You say the models can't predict what will happen, and I say that they can't predict what will happen with a high degree of certainty. A lot of the examples you've posted have been addressed (one by Anthony Watts himself), but I still agree that there are variables scientists don't yet know about. I know very well how hard it is to model the behavior of complex systems.

(01-16-2014 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

If you knew anything or weren't a leftie, you'd know that the NYT is not a go-to source for understanding of an issue or the truth. But they are very good at propaganda and advocacy and have been for many decades. It is always on the side of left wing causes, too. Very consistent and they love the far left commies and socialists who embrace redistribution of wealth.

I posted an article recently by Lindzen where he called out the catastrophists in the climate science community and you responded by saying "he sounds reasonable." Now, you seem to be in the corner of a man who is anti-Lindzen.

Lindzen himself said that many in the AGW movement were upset with him because he has disputed some of their science and he is against alarmism, which he says is unwarranted. But apparently, your faith in your religion wasn't shaken a bit. Still posting pro-AGW stuff, I see. Somehow, I'll bet that Bretherton is not quite as accomplished in the field as Lindzen, either. Envy and ego.

Be nice if for once, you would share your OWN opinion on AGW, Gore-bull warming or climate change or whatever the preferred name of it is this year. Share your opinion, not a link to an article or study you read. Show us what you really think instead of trolling with no opinion.

You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have.

Anyways, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me, leave out the personal attacks. Calling me a leftie or saying that AGW is my religion is just petty. This isn't an issue of choosing sides for me, so don't expect me to stop posting pro-AGW material. It's intellectually dishonest to completely reject one side in favor of the other. Have I ever posted something saying that skepticism of climate science is stupid? That wouldn't make sense because I'm not even half convinced that predictive modelling can be certain.

On top of that, meteorologist have trouble predicting weather in a weeks time. What would make one think that they could predict the weather in a years period of time?

(01-16-2014 06:41 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

If you knew anything or weren't a leftie, you'd know that the NYT is not a go-to source for understanding of an issue or the truth. But they are very good at propaganda and advocacy and have been for many decades. It is always on the side of left wing causes, too. Very consistent and they love the far left commies and socialists who embrace redistribution of wealth.

I posted an article recently by Lindzen where he called out the catastrophists in the climate science community and you responded by saying "he sounds reasonable." Now, you seem to be in the corner of a man who is anti-Lindzen.

Lindzen himself said that many in the AGW movement were upset with him because he has disputed some of their science and he is against alarmism, which he says is unwarranted. But apparently, your faith in your religion wasn't shaken a bit. Still posting pro-AGW stuff, I see. Somehow, I'll bet that Bretherton is not quite as accomplished in the field as Lindzen, either. Envy and ego.

Be nice if for once, you would share your OWN opinion on AGW, Gore-bull warming or climate change or whatever the preferred name of it is this year. Share your opinion, not a link to an article or study you read. Show us what you really think instead of trolling with no opinion.

You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have.

Anyways, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me, leave out the personal attacks. Calling me a leftie or saying that AGW is my religion is just petty. This isn't an issue of choosing sides for me, so don't expect me to stop posting pro-AGW material. It's intellectually dishonest to completely reject one side in favor of the other. Have I ever posted something saying that skepticism of climate science is stupid? That wouldn't make sense because I'm not even half convinced that predictive modelling can be certain.

On top of that, meteorologist have trouble predicting weather in a weeks time. What would make one think that they could predict the weather in a years period of time?

Weather and climate aren't exactly the same thing.

(01-16-2014 06:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:41 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

If you knew anything or weren't a leftie, you'd know that the NYT is not a go-to source for understanding of an issue or the truth. But they are very good at propaganda and advocacy and have been for many decades. It is always on the side of left wing causes, too. Very consistent and they love the far left commies and socialists who embrace redistribution of wealth.

I posted an article recently by Lindzen where he called out the catastrophists in the climate science community and you responded by saying "he sounds reasonable." Now, you seem to be in the corner of a man who is anti-Lindzen.

Lindzen himself said that many in the AGW movement were upset with him because he has disputed some of their science and he is against alarmism, which he says is unwarranted. But apparently, your faith in your religion wasn't shaken a bit. Still posting pro-AGW stuff, I see. Somehow, I'll bet that Bretherton is not quite as accomplished in the field as Lindzen, either. Envy and ego.

Be nice if for once, you would share your OWN opinion on AGW, Gore-bull warming or climate change or whatever the preferred name of it is this year. Share your opinion, not a link to an article or study you read. Show us what you really think instead of trolling with no opinion.

You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have.

Anyways, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me, leave out the personal attacks. Calling me a leftie or saying that AGW is my religion is just petty. This isn't an issue of choosing sides for me, so don't expect me to stop posting pro-AGW material. It's intellectually dishonest to completely reject one side in favor of the other. Have I ever posted something saying that skepticism of climate science is stupid? That wouldn't make sense because I'm not even half convinced that predictive modelling can be certain.

On top of that, meteorologist have trouble predicting weather in a weeks time. What would make one think that they could predict the weather in a years period of time?

Weather and climate aren't exactly the same thing.

Point taken.

(01-16-2014 06:46 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:41 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you knew anything or weren't a leftie, you'd know that the NYT is not a go-to source for understanding of an issue or the truth. But they are very good at propaganda and advocacy and have been for many decades. It is always on the side of left wing causes, too. Very consistent and they love the far left commies and socialists who embrace redistribution of wealth.

I posted an article recently by Lindzen where he called out the catastrophists in the climate science community and you responded by saying "he sounds reasonable." Now, you seem to be in the corner of a man who is anti-Lindzen.

Lindzen himself said that many in the AGW movement were upset with him because he has disputed some of their science and he is against alarmism, which he says is unwarranted. But apparently, your faith in your religion wasn't shaken a bit. Still posting pro-AGW stuff, I see. Somehow, I'll bet that Bretherton is not quite as accomplished in the field as Lindzen, either. Envy and ego.

Be nice if for once, you would share your OWN opinion on AGW, Gore-bull warming or climate change or whatever the preferred name of it is this year. Share your opinion, not a link to an article or study you read. Show us what you really think instead of trolling with no opinion.

You want my opinion?

I don't think there's any doubt that what we're measuring is real. That being said, I'm skeptical that scientists are capable of being highly confident in their predictions. Why do you think that there are so many different models? Probably because there are many unpredictable variables and scientists have to make conservative or liberal guesses on how big of an effect they will have.

Anyways, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me, leave out the personal attacks. Calling me a leftie or saying that AGW is my religion is just petty. This isn't an issue of choosing sides for me, so don't expect me to stop posting pro-AGW material. It's intellectually dishonest to completely reject one side in favor of the other. Have I ever posted something saying that skepticism of climate science is stupid? That wouldn't make sense because I'm not even half convinced that predictive modelling can be certain.

On top of that, meteorologist have trouble predicting weather in a weeks time. What would make one think that they could predict the weather in a years period of time?

Weather and climate aren't exactly the same thing.

Point taken.

That's not to say that predicting the climate isn't going to be extremely hard.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

(01-16-2014 12:12 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:10 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

No need to open your link. It is in the NY Times for heaven's sake. All that has to be said.

If we're going to reject information based on its source, I'm going to call you out for posting anything from Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts from now on.

You have not questioned information based on it's source?

(01-17-2014 12:01 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:12 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:10 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 12:01 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

Quote:While the scientific majority acknowledges that the lingering uncertainty about clouds plays into the hands of skeptics like Dr. Lindzen, they say that he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction.

Dr. 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,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/scienc....html?_r=0

No need to open your link. It is in the NY Times for heaven's sake. All that has to be said.

If we're going to reject information based on its source, I'm going to call you out for posting anything from Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts from now on.

You have not questioned information based on it's source?

I do, but that doesn't stop me from reading (just in case it has merit).

I have a feeling the AGW/Climate Change debate threads are going to have another resurgence over the next couple weeks. That Arctic blast we had a couple weeks ago will look short n' sweet compared to the prolonged agony everyone north of the Mason-Dixon Line will endure starting next Tuesday.