Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Newsweek’s Dr Lindzen, global warming skeptic?

with 20 comments

What does this man really think about global warming?

There are a few problems with the recent Newsweek article by Dr Lindzen, well known global warming skeptic. The first is that he is portrayed as a heroic scientist selflessly bucking the global warming mainstream, the Newsweek article was even careful to point out that: “His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.” This is misleading at best, a lie at worst. Dr. Lindzen charges $2500 a day for his consulting services to the coal and oil industry. He has been paid to travel to Washington by same to testify against global warming, he has been paid by a global warming denial think tank, and he’s even taken money from OPEC. Maybe his work at MIT is government funded, but he’s made some nice money from various big energy concerns, not to mention being paid for writing hit pieces against global warming. Being a highly credentialed global warming skeptic is a good way to make money, and Dr Lindzen is cashing in nicely.

Even more fun, let’s look at his research. People have reviewed his scientific papers, and guess what they discovered: Except when Dr Lindzen is writing for media outlets like Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal, he is a major proponent of man made global warming. He co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science’s report on climate change for example. This study also endorsed the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that was “virtually certain” that a long list of negative outcomes from global warming is to be expected. People who think that Dr Lindzen’s credentials give veracity to his global warming “skepticism:” Click on the above two links and see what Dr Lindzen really thinks about global warming.

Here’s a hint:

In 2005, James Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favour. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”

So I thank all those who brought Dr Lindzen’s Newsweek article to my attention. I urge everyone to take Dr Lindzen’s credentials as a scientist very seriously, he is a major proponent of man made global warming and the more people that know that the better, spread the word! The fact that the good doctor is perfectly willing to accept money for saying different in public may say something about his character, but has no bearing on global warming science.

Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier’s Financial Ties to Big Oil
Newsweek blesses Richard Lindzen, ignores pay-offs from fuel companies
Gambling on Global Warming Goes Mainstream

(The above image of Dr Lindzen is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It is not being used for profit and is central to illustrating the post.)


Written by unitedcats

April 14, 2007 at 1:40 pm

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. How about the front page article of the same issue, that belittles anyone who thinks that man-made global warming is a bit overhyped?

    Frank Staheli

    April 14, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  2. ad hominem arguments are so ‘common’. Can’t the anthropogenic bunch come up with something new? Dick Lintzen’s academic credentials are above reproach. Get an education and come back.

    Dr. Francis T. Manns

    April 14, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  3. Another case of ad hominism at its best. Why can’t you guys argue the science instead of trying to discredit credible scientists like Dick Lintzen.


    April 14, 2007 at 10:43 pm

  4. And the refernces you provide for a “deeper” insight into Dr. Lintzen are hardly unbiased and have very little credibity.

    Global Warming Alarmists should just stop, the science is settled, GW is not anthropgenic, nor is it caused by CO2, no credible scientist or honest person could possibly believe otherwise.


    April 14, 2007 at 10:48 pm

  5. The Global Warming is Eye-ranians fault. Eye-ran is behind it all.

    Not the insider himself

    April 15, 2007 at 2:23 am

  6. A typical econut response. You cant disparage the science so you attack the personality behind it.

    T F Bundy

    April 15, 2007 at 2:42 am

  7. Your opening paragraph has assumptions that you seem to take for granted but certainly are not proven or valid.

    You (along with Newsweek) seem to say that if the research is funded by the government it has validity and if it is funded by private sector business it is suspect.

    My opinion would be that you seem to have this exactly backwards. Honestly, I don’t think you can find an honest government on the planet. They are all full of corrupt, self serving individuals. It has been this way throughout history.

    Here in the United States the government is currently wiping out the soundest monetary system ever created, making future promises for the people’s health and retirment security that it cannot keep, and spending their days in the reduction of freedoms. The examples of success are few and far between.

    On the other hand, if you look around you every bit of progress that contributes to an advanced standard of living has been created out of the private sector.

    Scientists’ paid “exclusively by the U.S. government” should be scrutinized intensely. There certainly is no evidence that “big oil” has more dishonesty then “big government”. I actually prefer the product that I get from the oil companies.

    Rick G

    April 15, 2007 at 5:50 am

  8. You cant look at a few years of history and draw conclusions way out into the future. And yes dear friends we only have a tiny range of data to work with. And then to go one step further and assign the definitive warming ‘factor’ to be human generated CO2 is the height of arrogance by dolts.

    You can also ‘relate’ the temperature ‘rise’ to the number of dollar printed ‘since 1776’ or even claim its because of there are more cats on the planet !
    When the data is plotted, they sure look like one goes up, and so does the other, oh my!
    Any two sets of data can be plotted against one another. It does not mean that they are related or one caused the other LOL!!

    Like I said.. Follow the money and you will understand what its all about. Its about making a marketplace for the trading of ‘pollution indulgences’ and MAKING MONEY !! People, this means that pollution will continue and they just have to buy some ‘credits’.

    The greenies are hopelessly manipulated and hypnotised because they think that finally someone is listening to them..


    April 15, 2007 at 7:40 am

  9. “ad hominem arguments are so ‘common’. Can’t the anthropogenic bunch come up with something new? Dick Lintzen’s academic credentials are above reproach. Get an education and come back.”

    Dr. Manns, did you even read this post, or did you just copy and paste this comment into every blog you could find with Dick Lintzen written in it? Doug never argued with his credentials, in fact he lauded the work that Dr. Lintzen accomplished on papers PROVING THAT THE EFFECTS OF GW WERE MOSTLY LIKELY DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY. Please read the post before replying next time. K thx bye.

    Dr. Rolph Gugen

    April 15, 2007 at 10:46 am

  10. Yeah, not sure what is more annoying. That people who disagree with me often cannot seem to articulate what they are saying, it’s often hard to even figure out what they mean…and often it’s clear they haven’t even read the post or at best gave it a superficial once over and leaped to conclusions. Or the ad hominem attacks directed either personally or generally at me or the people they disagree with. Got to admit that referring to evironmentalists as “wads of nasty spit” (I am sure everyone knows what a “greenie” means, we’ve all been to grade school) is a new low. I think that protecting the planet is a good thing, our grandchildren are going to have to live on it after all. If that makes me a wad a phlegm, well, I guess I will have to live with it. It’s pretty clear to me at least that people who do their best to think of nasty hateful terms for those they disagree with aren’t really interested in debate. They are welcome to continue commenting though, in fact I must be making some good points if nasty name calling is the retort. :)


    April 15, 2007 at 11:34 am

  11. Greenie as in Green, a environmentalist-idealist by my intended use. No offense implied :)


    April 15, 2007 at 7:56 pm

  12. Only sharing my cynical take on almost any topic :)


    April 15, 2007 at 7:58 pm

  13. Offence withdrawn, I’m just hypersensitive to the name calling that goes on on all sides in so many issues these days. I find “repuglican” as offensive and counterproductive as “feminazi.”


    April 15, 2007 at 9:01 pm

  14. ET, your use of the pejorative “greenie” indicates a lack of regard for those who wish to preserve what’s left of our environment.

    While you may wish to dispute the science behind “the greatest hoax pulled on the American people”, I sincerely hope that you aren’t dismissing those who want to keep this earth a decent place to live in.

    We had a hole in the ozone, we fixed it. We have rising global temperatures and other nasty weather patterns, it seems that it is likely linked to human activity, why not try and fix that too? Surely no one out there will argue that reducing our pollution of the environment is a bad thing… right?

    Dr. Rolph Gugen

    April 16, 2007 at 1:53 am

  15. Of course reducing pollution is a good thing.

    Too bad it wont REALY happen as business wants to ‘trade’ in it. Thats the point. Sadly, its all about the money.

    ‘Environmentalists’ should wake up and realize that.. Its all about the unintended consequences.. end of point.


    April 16, 2007 at 6:36 am

  16. While we argue about a few parts per million of this and a few parts per billion of that, and how we need to spend upwards of $100,000,000,000,000 (thats trillions) to offset 0.07 degrees celcius temperature rise by 2100 or whatever, 4,000,000 children die of lung diseases in poor nations from indoor cooking fires, 30,000 people (mostly children and the elderly) die every day from malnutrition. Millions die needlessly from malaria and other vector borne diseases. Most of the world’s population lacks access to clean drinking water. What’s left of the “natural” environment is hacked down to provide firewood and to make way for cane fields to produce ethanol. Our wetlands are disappearing due to agriculture and industry. Yes, the earth is going to hell in a handbasket, but Koyoto is not going to change any of that. Koyoto will only rearrange the concentrations of money.

    An Inconvenient Truth warns us that New York, the Netherlands, London, San Francisco, and Florida will be underwater, affecting millions of people. An Inconvenient Reality tells us that billions of people are already at threat, not from the world’s climate, but from the climate of alarmism and inaction in the face of real threat.

    Do we care about what is happening right now to millions or billions of people or do we care more about what “might” happen 100 years from now. Add up the carnage, there is no balance.


    April 16, 2007 at 8:54 am

  17. That’s it? Your argument consists of statements that there was no bet and that Prof. L. compensated for his services? And that his study was cited by another (hyperpolitical) study?

    Apparently, being a leftie means never havign to say you’re sorry for your inability to marshall facts, rationale and reason for your alarmist conclusion.

    If only real life were so simple . . .

    Mr. Commissar

    April 23, 2007 at 4:59 am

  18. Did you bother the read the study that Dr Lindzen co-authored, or like so many righties do you refuse to read anything that you disagree with so as not to have to actually understand what you are arguing about? Thanks for dropping by! —Doug


    April 23, 2007 at 7:18 am

  19. OK, some more scientists for the global warming crowd to shun…

    Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 9:14 PM ET

    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

    Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

    Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

    The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

    In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

    The media’s climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears )

    Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

    Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years.” Wiskel also said that global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. “If you funnel money into things that can’t be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )

    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

    Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

    Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”

    Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: “It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

    Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.


    May 16, 2007 at 6:58 am

  20. Dr. Hal Lewis of UC Santa Barbara, Physics, resigned from the APS (American Physicists Society?) in late 2010 for their slavish devotion to the global warming hysteria. His resignation letter is brilliant. He compared the global warming catastrophe idea to a “rogue wave” devouring all things in Science before it. He considered it to be the duty of all scientists to stand up to this travesty for the honor of Science itself.

    Lorentz Rudzewicz

    December 22, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: