"...are that in a single core, of course the accuracy is very poor, as stated. But (just like where you can add multiple images together to get more information than the number of pixels captured in each individual image) when you add the information from many many cores to your dataset, you can get more precision from the system than any one core could provide. I believe that your spokesman (who I take to be an intellegent scientist who knows better) was deliberately misleading."

Oh yeah. That story was linked from http://www.junkscience.com/

Now maybe that's my spokesman- cause I do visit the site. But I don't watch Larry King. And don't know much about Lindzen other than he claims he worked for UN on climate issues. But maybe I have read his stuff before. Wait sec I'll check.

"To quote the great 19th
Century English scientist, Lord Kelvin, “When you can measure what you are speaking
about and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”

As it turns out, much of what informed scientists agree upon is barely quantitative at all:

that global mean temperature has probably increased over the past centurythat CO2 in the atmosphere has
increased over the same period, that the added CO
2
is more likely to have caused global mean
temperature to increase rather than
decrease, and that man, like the butterfly, has
some impact on climate."
Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001

Maybe I'll read the whole thing later. What else?

"Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy.[1] He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University.

Lindzen is identified as a contributer to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995".[2]

He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.” "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Hmm, maybe I read that Wall street article. What else?

"In 1993 documents appeared in secret tobacco conspiracy file cabinets about a fake science conference organized by the documented corrupt S. Fred Singer. This meeting in Washington, DC, was facetiously titled "Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process", funded by two lung-killer industries tobacco and asbestos, and Lindzen was a prominant hoaxer at this event. Lindzen has been paid in a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to defraud the public on the immanent dangers of Global Warming, just as he participated with co-conspirators to aid Singer's science hoaxes on behalf of tobacco and asbestos SERIAL MURDERER CORPORATIONS.

Every single fact below can stand up in court in the trial of Lindzen for FELONY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Much more incriminating evidence will be adduced at trial. "
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html

Nope I haven't read that before. What else?

Oh, maybe this is the Wall street Journal story mentioned above:
"The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know." "
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Nope, I have never read this before. There must be something I read before. What else?
Another Wall street thingy:
"Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

I haven't read that before, either. What else?

"A portly man with a bushy beard and a receding hairline, Lindzen ushered me into his living room. Using a succession of cigarettes for emphasis, he explains that he never intended to be outspoken on climate change. It all began in the searing summer of 1988. At a high-profile congressional hearing, physicist James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies went public with his view: that scientists knew, "with a high degree of confidence," that human activities such as burning fossil fuel were warming the world. Lindzen was shocked by the media accounts that followed. "I thought it was important," he recalls, "to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism." What he thought would be a couple of months in the public eye has turned into more than a decade of climate skepticism. "I did feel a moral obligation," he remarks of the early days, "although now it is more a matter of being stuck with a role." "

sciam
Nope, I haven't read that before. But now I know he is fat and balding. And either he or someone in household probably smokes cigarettes- I imagine he doesn't buy the second hand smoke myth of it killing people either. What else?

"ST: Why do you think your paper is highly cited?
The paper attempts to use both observations and theory to determine the climate feedbacks from clouds and water vapor that determine the sensitivity of climate to such factors as increasing greenhouse gases. Such feedbacks in current models are responsible for the large responses found in these models. However, it is generally recognized that the models do not include the physics and the mathematical resolution needed to determine these feedbacks. Thus the model feedbacks are, at present, simply artifacts of the models. Our work strongly suggests that the relevant feedbacks are negative rather than positive, and very large in magnitude. If this is indeed correct, then concerns for global warming are greatly exaggerated. "
http://www.esi-topics.com/fbp/2003/february03-RichardLindzen.html

Nope, I haven't seen this before either. There is a picture here though. And he doesn't seem familar.
But the article is pretty interesting.

Anyways this is boring. I am not a fan of Richard Lindzen- but the name was vaguely familar.