MIT guy: Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint).
Of course, this is because pinko ideology has morphed into an oddball mixture of quack pseudo-science, hemp-clouded pseudo-religion, pidgin marxism, self-flagellation, hysterical fits of frenzy, and plain old obscurantism.
So OK, I can understand all that -- various bits and pieces of all this crap has been around since time immemorial. What really gets me is when this putrid package is wrapped up in that typical smugly, smirky, know-it-all pose, so familiar from, say, Pepe's rantings. Or, when the whole cloaca is used to disguise the miasmas of money-grubbing Ponzi schemes.
An older piece by Lindzen: All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. [...] In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
Yes. Back then he was crying in the wilderness, with the wolves circling the wagons, baying for blood. (Did I get my metaphors right?) Now that even FCP has jumped into the fray, he's more blah. But give the old man credit. He knows what he's talking about.
9 comments:
MIT guy: Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint).
Of course, this is because pinko ideology has morphed into an oddball mixture of quack pseudo-science, hemp-clouded pseudo-religion, pidgin marxism, self-flagellation, hysterical fits of frenzy, and plain old obscurantism.
So OK, I can understand all that -- various bits and pieces of all this crap has been around since time immemorial. What really gets me is when this putrid package is wrapped up in that typical smugly, smirky, know-it-all pose, so familiar from, say, Pepe's rantings. Or, when the whole cloaca is used to disguise the miasmas of money-grubbing Ponzi schemes.
All of your buses are belong to us.
Lindzen ain't no pinko and he gets little air time because he doesn't toe the line.
In fact Lindzen's paper with some Chinese is called crap by Phil Jones in a letter.
Hmmm... And now?
An older piece by Lindzen:
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. [...] In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
Amazingly, a Boston Globe guy writes honestly about Lindzen.
Z makes up for the friendly puff-piece today, but yeah, shocking.
Lindzen's older article is better.
Yes. Back then he was crying in the wilderness, with the wolves circling the wagons, baying for blood. (Did I get my metaphors right?) Now that even FCP has jumped into the fray, he's more blah. But give the old man credit. He knows what he's talking about.
Yeh, he's good. Not a junk scientist, like you say.
Powww!
VCP!!!
Post a Comment