Professors Challenge The Canard of Anthropogenic Climate Change

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,342
13,336
1

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has no reliable scientific basis

Two distinguished Princeton professors, Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Earth Sciences, and William Happer, Prof. of Physics, recently testified before Congress on the SEC’s proposed rule change (taken without any Congressional authority) to make all publicly traded companies adopt climate change mitigation policies. The two professors testified against this rule, stating flatly that “science demonstrates that there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.”

As I have been pointing out for two decades (see, for example, here, here, here, and here), the claim that “climate change” is primarily driven by humans burning fossil fuels and that computer models prove that this anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic are all claims are based on four decades of Lysenkoism posing as science. Professors Lindzen and Happer drive every one of those points home in spades in their testimony before Congress. Below is the summary they provided to Congress. This should be required reading for every American.
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,354
37,385
1
Two distinguished Princeton professors, Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Earth Sciences, and William Happer, Prof. of Physics, recently testified before Congress on the SEC’s proposed rule change (taken without any Congressional authority) to make all publicly traded companies adopt climate change mitigation policies. The two professors testified against this rule, stating flatly that “science demonstrates that there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.”
So much awesome material in that link. Thanks for the share. Re: Princeton professors on climate change
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,064
6,353
1

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has no reliable scientific basis

Two distinguished Princeton professors, Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Earth Sciences, and William Happer, Prof. of Physics, recently testified before Congress on the SEC’s proposed rule change (taken without any Congressional authority) to make all publicly traded companies adopt climate change mitigation policies. The two professors testified against this rule, stating flatly that “science demonstrates that there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.”

As I have been pointing out for two decades (see, for example, here, here, here, and here), the claim that “climate change” is primarily driven by humans burning fossil fuels and that computer models prove that this anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic are all claims are based on four decades of Lysenkoism posing as science. Professors Lindzen and Happer drive every one of those points home in spades in their testimony before Congress. Below is the summary they provided to Congress. This should be required reading for every American.
wait...I thought this whole climate change thing was "settled science". could it be that climate has been changing forever and that keeping the concept alive puts a lot of money in a lot of people's pockets?
How come the biggest polluters India and China don't seem so concerned? We'll be going back to grass shacks and they'll still be building coal fired power generation plants.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,554
11,513
1
SE PA

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has no reliable scientific basis

Two distinguished Princeton professors, Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Earth Sciences, and William Happer, Prof. of Physics, recently testified before Congress on the SEC’s proposed rule change (taken without any Congressional authority) to make all publicly traded companies adopt climate change mitigation policies. The two professors testified against this rule, stating flatly that “science demonstrates that there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.”

As I have been pointing out for two decades (see, for example, here, here, here, and here), the claim that “climate change” is primarily driven by humans burning fossil fuels and that computer models prove that this anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic are all claims are based on four decades of Lysenkoism posing as science. Professors Lindzen and Happer drive every one of those points home in spades in their testimony before Congress. Below is the summary they provided to Congress. This should be required reading for every American.
VERY good read.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,056
37,464
1

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has no reliable scientific basis

Two distinguished Princeton professors, Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Earth Sciences, and William Happer, Prof. of Physics, recently testified before Congress on the SEC’s proposed rule change (taken without any Congressional authority) to make all publicly traded companies adopt climate change mitigation policies. The two professors testified against this rule, stating flatly that “science demonstrates that there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.”

As I have been pointing out for two decades (see, for example, here, here, here, and here), the claim that “climate change” is primarily driven by humans burning fossil fuels and that computer models prove that this anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic are all claims are based on four decades of Lysenkoism posing as science. Professors Lindzen and Happer drive every one of those points home in spades in their testimony before Congress. Below is the summary they provided to Congress. This should be required reading for every American.
Are you saying the science is settled?
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,064
6,353
1
Lindzen says there is no proof smoking causes lung cancer.
Happer says demonization of CO2 is like demonization of Jews under Hitler.
Well are they wrong? And what does that have to do with CO2
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Who can find a direct quote where Lindzen disputes the link between smoking and lung cancer?

I cannot.
You must not be looking very hard.
<https://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/>
<https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen>
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data." [14]
 
Last edited:

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,407
1
You must not be looking very hard.
<https://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/>
<https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen>
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data." [14]
I cannot find a direct quote from Lindsey where he disputes the link between lung cancer and smoking.

I do see two people who are saying what Lindzen said.

Hell, that’s meaningless.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,517
21,189
1
no, what about the second part of my question?
You mean the following statement?

Happer says demonization of CO2 is like demonization of Jews under Hitler.
What does that even mean?! Are you (or this person "Happer") contending that people who have a negative opinion of the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide believe that "the Jews" were an equally bad thing? That "the Jews" - like carbon dioxide - needed to be reduced in number or eliminated? Leaving aside the fact that plants breathe carbon dioxide (so SOME level of carbon dioxide is both necessary and beneficial), I don't think one could seriously maintain that environmentalists are also supporters of the "Final Solution." But feel free to run with that hypothesis.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has no reliable scientific basis

Two distinguished Princeton professors, Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Earth Sciences, and William Happer, Prof. of Physics, recently testified before Congress on the SEC’s proposed rule change (taken without any Congressional authority) to make all publicly traded companies adopt climate change mitigation policies. The two professors testified against this rule, stating flatly that “science demonstrates that there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.”

As I have been pointing out for two decades (see, for example, here, here, here, and here), the claim that “climate change” is primarily driven by humans burning fossil fuels and that computer models prove that this anthropogenic climate change will be catastrophic are all claims are based on four decades of Lysenkoism posing as science. Professors Lindzen and Happer drive every one of those points home in spades in their testimony before Congress. Below is the summary they provided to Congress. This should be required reading for every American.

Lindzen is paid shill.

Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science. The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported.​
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.​
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.​
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: ouirpsu

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,407
1
Lindzen is paid shill.

Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science. The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported.​
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.​
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”​
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.​
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.​
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.​
Lindzen and Happer, especially, are geniuses.

They‘re right on this issue, and you have no opinion, being completely unable to understand the physics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Who can find a direct quote where Lindzen disputes the link between smoking and lung cancer?

I cannot.


This is taken from his own wiki page.

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]
87. Guterl, Fred (July 23, 2001). "The Truth About Global Warming". Newsweek. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
88. ^ Williams, Robyn (2005). "Fair-weather friends?". Griffith Review (12). Retrieved June 12, 2017.
89. ^ Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. (1998). "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90 (19): 1440–50. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.19.1440. PMID 9776409.
90. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate (video). April 26, 2012. Event occurs at 22:34. Retrieved June 12, 2017. Transcript; Episode page {{cite AV media}}: External link in |quote= (help)
91.^ Treadgold, Richard (May 15, 2011). "Lindzen dismisses Hansen's defamations". Climate Conversation Group. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
I cannot find a direct quote from Lindsey where he disputes the link between lung cancer and smoking.

I do see two people who are saying what Lindzen said.

Hell, that’s meaningless.
Well, every report on the issue says the same thing about him.
No, you’re meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,277
27,954
1
An altered state
This is taken from his own wiki page.

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]
87. Guterl, Fred (July 23, 2001). "The Truth About Global Warming". Newsweek. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
88. ^ Williams, Robyn (2005). "Fair-weather friends?". Griffith Review (12). Retrieved June 12, 2017.
89. ^ Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. (1998). "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90 (19): 1440–50. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.19.1440. PMID 9776409.
90. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate (video). April 26, 2012. Event occurs at 22:34. Retrieved June 12, 2017. Transcript; Episode page {{cite AV media}}: External link in |quote= (help)
91.^ Treadgold, Richard (May 15, 2011). "Lindzen dismisses Hansen's defamations". Climate Conversation Group. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
So he does say smoking causes lung cancer. Thanks.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Lindzen and Happer, especially, are geniuses.

They‘re right on this issue, and you have no opinion, being completely unable to understand the physics.

Cripes the physics have been known since the 50's when the military was trying to develop heat seeking missiles.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,517
21,189
1
This is taken from his own wiki page.

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]
Whoops! Looks like PSUEngineer got pwnd. Again. LOL ...
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
713
1,800
1
We've lived in periods of 3 orders of magnitude higher atmospheric CO2 and temperatures over the earth's living history mostly have oscillated between 2 semi-stable equilibria temps during those times.

We are currently closer to the lower of those equilibria temps and very rich humans want to convince other humans to send them money because temps have risen very slightly off that lower equilibria temp when viewing only a small range of available data. This despite all previous predictions by those very rich humans seeking our money not coming true.

Our earth system is much more complex than the over-simplistic models the climate "scientists" engineer to give them their desired results. I've seen about a dozen of these models presented at colloquia. Some ignore inputs and feedbacks that others include. Many ignore the greatest source of energy to our earth system (the sun). Many have negative guesstimates for their feedback constants while others have positive for the exact same feedbacks. They all engineer their models to find rising temps in the prescribed range which may potentially secure government funding of their "research".

Then we are to trust these very rich people pimping the models with disastrous predictions that come due with no mention as they were laughably incorrect. Don't mention the proven false claims, make new ones, and the sheep will continue to be herded.

What are they doing with the money they received peddling this beyond their multiple mansions and private jets? How does that help change our earth's temperatures? If by chance, they actually attempted to alter our earth's system to lower temps what are the actual consequences of those attempts? Humans often introduce invasive species to certain environments to eliminate a problem while creating new ones. Then introduce another to eradicate the invasive species they brought in the first place creating yet other unforeseen problems. And we want these humans to attempt to control our earth systems thermostat on a large scale? No thank you.
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,262
1,376
1
Lindzen is paid shill.

Lindzen is a former distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute‘s Center for the Study of Science. The Center shut down in 2019, and was no longer affiliated with Lindzen at that time. “It’s unclear when he left Cato, and [Spokeswoman Khristine] Brookes declined to comment on personnel issues,” E&E News reported.​
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.​
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”​
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.​
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.​
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.​
Oh please he once worked for an organization that received the outrageous sum of $125,000 in donations from an evil oil company since 1998. He also had the nerve to receive a fee from a coal company for his consulting services.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Oh please he once worked for an organization that received the outrageous sum of $125,000 in donations from an evil oil company since 1998. He also had the nerve to receive a fee from a coal company for his consulting services.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,407
1
The same can be said for the whole climate change industry and very few salaries could be supported by the amount of money you are talking about in your original post.
Rumble isn't even serious.

He doesn't understand the physics, so he has to lie about motives.

But with respect to motives, no sensible person thinks that Lindzen or Happer are willing to take the abuse they get simply because they're getting some ridiculously small amount of money.

It's like people who say Bill Gates does what he does wrt vaccines because of money - it's just silly. Bill Gates does NOT need that money. Neither do Lindzen or Happer.

Anyone saying otherwise isn't a serious person.
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,262
1,376
1
Rumble isn't even serious.

He doesn't understand the physics, so he has to lie about motives.

But with respect to motives, no sensible person thinks that Lindzen or Happer are willing to take the abuse they get simply because they're getting some ridiculously small amount of money.

It's like people who say Bill Gates does what he does wrt vaccines because of money - it's just silly. Bill Gates does NOT need that money. Neither do Lindzen or Happer.

Anyone saying otherwise isn't a serious person.
Exactly, for an academic to come out against thee current climate change paradigm there is not enough money to compensate them for the abuse they will take.
 

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,342
13,336
1
This is taken from his own wiki page.

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]
87. Guterl, Fred (July 23, 2001). "The Truth About Global Warming". Newsweek. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
88. ^ Williams, Robyn (2005). "Fair-weather friends?". Griffith Review (12). Retrieved June 12, 2017.
89. ^ Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. (1998). "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90 (19): 1440–50. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.19.1440. PMID 9776409.
90. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate (video). April 26, 2012. Event occurs at 22:34. Retrieved June 12, 2017. Transcript; Episode page {{cite AV media}}: External link in |quote= (help)
91.^ Treadgold, Richard (May 15, 2011). "Lindzen dismisses Hansen's defamations". Climate Conversation Group. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
wiki, lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe and bison13

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,277
27,954
1
An altered state
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair
So why would we trust any ‘researcher’ whose entire livelihood is based on getting grant money from the government to prove a hypothesis that would give the government massive power gains?
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,277
27,954
1
An altered state
This is taken from his own wiki page.

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]
87. Guterl, Fred (July 23, 2001). "The Truth About Global Warming". Newsweek. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
88. ^ Williams, Robyn (2005). "Fair-weather friends?". Griffith Review (12). Retrieved June 12, 2017.
89. ^ Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. (1998). "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90 (19): 1440–50. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.19.1440. PMID 9776409.
90. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate (video). April 26, 2012. Event occurs at 22:34. Retrieved June 12, 2017. Transcript; Episode page {{cite AV media}}: External link in |quote= (help)
91.^ Treadgold, Richard (May 15, 2011). "Lindzen dismisses Hansen's defamations". Climate Conversation Group. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
Please post how much Micheal Mann was given by a government seeking more power? Please post how much he makes in speaking fees, book deals, and consulting fees. Please post how the people running the IPCC, or whatever fancy title they gave themselves, get paid annually to push their opinions. Please post what other Gods of Anthropogenic Global Warming make in financial renumeration for their opining.
After all, their salary depends on them pushing these positions so how can they truly understand the science?
 

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,793
2,407
1
Please post how much Micheal Mann was given by a government seeking more power? Please post how much he makes in speaking fees, book deals, and consulting fees. Please post how the people running the IPCC, or whatever fancy title they gave themselves, get paid annually to push their opinions. Please post what other Gods of Anthropogenic Global Warming make in financial renumeration for their opining.
After all, their salary depends on them pushing these positions so how can they truly understand the science?
It’s different. Those of us on the right just wouldn’t understand.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Spin Meister

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Exactly, for an academic to come out against thee current climate change paradigm there is not enough money to compensate them for the abuse they will take.

They can make a lot more money working for the oil industry than they can make in academia.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Please post how much Micheal Mann was given by a government seeking more power? Please post how much he makes in speaking fees, book deals, and consulting fees. Please post how the people running the IPCC, or whatever fancy title they gave themselves, get paid annually to push their opinions. Please post what other Gods of Anthropogenic Global Warming make in financial renumeration for their opining.
After all, their salary depends on them pushing these positions so how can they truly understand the science?

 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Rumble isn't even serious.

He doesn't understand the physics, so he has to lie about motives.

But with respect to motives, no sensible person thinks that Lindzen or Happer are willing to take the abuse they get simply because they're getting some ridiculously small amount of money.

It's like people who say Bill Gates does what he does wrt vaccines because of money - it's just silly. Bill Gates does NOT need that money. Neither do Lindzen or Happer.

Anyone saying otherwise isn't a serious person.
How do you know how much they make or how greedy they are? I bet it’s a lot less than Gates who you Nazis have accused of greedy motives re covid.