MIT Scientist: GW Fat Cats Feed Fear For Funding

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? [1][1] Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 27, 2008

Abstract

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective.

The institutional factor has many components.

One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end.

Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken.

The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific...

(Excerpt) Read more at http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc2m8p62_389gh6frdd2

"...Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, are overstated. In 2001,[24] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen

He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[24]
A 1991 article in Consumers' Research entitled "Passive Smoking: How Great a Hazard?" is also sometimes used to characterize Richard Lindzen as a tobacco spokesperson or expert..."

Well Keli I found this article in Wiki indicating your source also does not believe cigarette smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke is all that harmful either.

I could not get your link to work though.

Oh, and somewhere in my few minutes of research I saw where he is on the payroll of some of the biggest polluters as a consultant.

sodbuster wrote:"...Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, are overstated. In 2001,[24] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen

He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[24]
A 1991 article in Consumers' Research entitled "Passive Smoking: How Great a Hazard?" is also sometimes used to characterize Richard Lindzen as a tobacco spokesperson or expert..."

Well Keli I found this article in Wiki indicating your source also does not believe cigarette smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke is all that harmful either.

I could not get your link to work though.

Oh, and somewhere in my few minutes of research I saw where he is on the payroll of some of the biggest polluters as a consultant.

I am not a smoker. I do not advocate smoking. However, I know those who were non-smokers/non-exposed to second hand smoke yet developed lung cancer; and, I know smokers who lived to be a hundred. Don't you?

Anyone can say anything they want on Wikipedia...

Here is the artcile in its entirety: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc2m8p62_389gh6frdd2

I don't advocate smoking either; that is, unless it upsets a liberal. In that case I advocate not only smoking but eating inhumanely raised beef in the form of a bloody bacon cheeseburger while drinking some very cheap wine produced in the least ecologically responsible manner possible, while wearing leather produced by a starving child making 35 cents a day and shooting a gun at a helpless deer from a helicopter running on Saudi oil.

I'm joking, of course. The starving child makes at least 40 cents an hour.

"I am not a smoker. I do not advocate smoking. However, I know those who were non-smokers/non-exposed to second hand smoke yet developed lung cancer; and, I know smokers who lived to be a hundred. Don't you?"

Well Keli that is what they refer to as anecdotal evidence.

Not very reliable, and not at all acceptable in a serious study.

But to tell the truth I do not know any non-smokers who have caught lung cancer.

But I know a lot of smokers who have died a horrible death from lung cancer. Also from emphysema, heart attacks, etc.

So I hope you wont get taken in by that anti-science crowd that still denies the horrible damage done by smoking tobacco. (Plus from what I can tell the guy does not deny there is global warming going on. He just apparently is not concerned that it will affect our lives that much.)

But when I saw where he is a paid consultant for the polluters he kind of lost credibility with me.

Plus no, I do not personally know any smokers who lived to be a hundred.

And if you ever watched someone die of lung cancer it is not pretty.

I am really glad Judge McGraw is making these cigarette companies pay for what they have done to so many in wv.

Sherm,

You are right that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Just like a couple of drowning polar bears or an unusual season of hurricanes is not evidence, either. Within this crazy world you are always going to find the unpredictable. I have gone jogging on 65 degree days in Chicago on Christmas, and I have shivered through an early May in Ohio.

My grandfather smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 40 years and drank whiskey like a fish drinks water. He died at 90.

My father, his son, never smoked and never imbibed, and died at 62.

Of course this proves nothing other than cigarettes will not necessarily kill you off young, and avoiding them will not necessarily help you live a long life.

For what it's worth (and this is a conclusion that has no scientific merit, but it's what I have concluded), my grandfather and my dad (who both died of similar causes) had as their biggest difference the amount of stress in their lives. My grandfather was a mechanic who spoke his mind. My father was a businessman and then a teacher who always had to be careful with his words. My dad had twice the stress of my grandfather (especially with those evil kids of his, the youngest being the biggest tool of them all) and half of the exercise.

I am the healthiest and the happiest of my generation (and the most virile, it seems) and I am convinced that it has nothing to do with my not smoking (none of us do), but rather my marriage to a wife with a sense of humor, my ability to speak freely with my family, my Christian faith, and my low-stress employment.

When we look to condemn smoking, I think we miss the mark. Stressful jobs, a stressful marriage, a stressful family environment, will all kill you off or at the very least make you wish you were dead. They may also lead you to smoking.

At any rate I say smoke up if that really pleases you. One of the blessings of liberty is to make choices that are bad for you.

Well does that extend to blowing your smoke on someone else?

I am really glad Judge McGraw is making these cigarette companies pay for what they have done to so many in wv.

Cigarette companies pay no more than they ever did - their poor and ignorant customers who could ill afford it to begin with are charged more for their addiction. Meanwhile the trial lawyers who contributed to McGraw's re-election were hired to prosecute the cigarette companies and became quite wealthy in the bargain. Hats off to Judge McGraw.

sodbuster wrote:Well does that extend to blowing your smoke on someone else?

If someone is in a sealed off room in a restaurant or 25 feet away at a football game, how are they blowing their smoke on you? I've been on both sides of this issue and I've found that if smoke is bothering someone and the person speaks up, the smoker will either put the cigarette out or move away 99% of the time so that argument is nothing more then a straw mans attempt to violate a smokers constitutional right.

sodbuster wrote:Well does that extend to blowing your smoke on someone else?

I've been on both sides of this issue and I've found that if smoke is bothering someone and the person speaks up, the smoker will either put the cigarette out or move away 99% of the time

And you kept a tally sheet to keep track of it all, right?

so that argument is nothing more then a straw mans attempt to violate a smokers constitutional right

"Constitutional right" to what? Does the "constitutional right" of a smoker to make the rest of us breathe cigarette smoke exceed someone else's constitutional right to not have to breathe it?

All the colonge, after shave, talc, deodorant, sanitizers, breath freshners, etc. that Sherm used/uses to impress and attract the females ...... is more harmful to his lungs than a couple wisps of cigarette smoke will ever be.

There was a news article recently about a teenager who died as a direct result of "making himself smell good" by applying those sprays, body washes, etc in a small confined bathroom.

.

SamCogar wrote:All the colonge, after shave, talc, deodorant, sanitizers, breath freshners, etc. that Sherm used/uses to impress and attract the females ...... is more harmful to his lungs than a couple wisps of cigarette smoke will ever be.

There was a news article recently about a teenager who died as a direct result of "making himself smell good" by applying those sprays, body washes, etc in a small confined bathroom.

.

If you use that new Burger King cologne, I would stay away from Hindus--or cownnibals.

If you've had an inordinate amount of people who've refused to put their cigarette out around you Ziggy it's probably because you were being an asshole, not the other way around.

And we're all entitled to the pursuit of happiness.

OK this all reminds me of two separate incidents in my life. One fairly recent, and the other about 15 years ago.

The cow thing.

About 15 years ago, at just this time of year, my friends Mary & Sandy and their children were supposed to come do the Christmas thing with us. So Mary calls me and tells me they're going to be late because they are at her in-law's house and her MIL & FIL (Lalita & Vishram) want the kids to stay and help decorate their Christmas tree.

Now please know and understand that Sandy is a nickname for Sundeep and he was born in India and moved to the USA with his parents as a baby. OK...now this part will make sense.

So I'm on the phone with Mary and I relay her message to my then husband, Rick, that they're going to be late because the Doctors want the kids to help decorate for the holidays. Rick, being Rick, replies (loud enough for Mary to hear on the other end of the line) "Jesus Christ Almighty! What the hell are they going to do? Light a freaking cow up on the front lawn?"

LMAO

OK....now for the more recent tale, about the cigarette smoking. This really sort of got under my skin so it is entirely possible I've already told this so please forgive me if you're reading it a second time.

About a year ago I had taken Loyd to a Whiz Bang! Workshop at the Clay Center. Lewis (who is amazing) runs these things and most parents just drop their kids off and run errands or whatever. I almost always hang out and watch what they're doing because Lewis is the bomb. Anyway, I took a cigarette break outside. They have an ashtray outside the doors that lead into the performance hall so that is where I stood to smoke. Well this old couple comes walking up the walkway and when they got within about 15 feet of me, outside in the wide open air mind you, the woman covers her mouth and nose with her hand! By the time she got 12 feet away from me I could smell her perfume out there in the wide open air. That was OK for her to douse herself in what my best guess was Opium to wear in the confines of the Electric Sky Theatre where I ran into that couple again about an hour later. My smoking outside (in the wide open air) was a threat to her delicate sensibilities, however.

Good grief.

More proof of GW:


DRUDGE 12/22/08:
Bitter cold, high winds chill Midwest...
RealFeel: -30 in Chicago...
NYC -10...

You see...cold weather, warm weather, hot weather AND no weather ALL prove GW, dummy.

Aaron wrote:

If you've had an inordinate amount of people who've refused to put their cigarette out around you Ziggy it's probably because you were being an asshole, not the other way around.

A smoker, challenged about lighting up in my presence in MY office- despite several prominent "No Smoking" signs at the building and office entrances, once told me, "Smokers have rights too, you know".

So in the spirit of the expression of unlimited 'smokers' rights', my reply to Aaron is, "Assholes have rights too, you know".

So you found the 1%. Imagine that.