Reliability of Richard Lindzen

[brian0918]

Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist at MIT. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 (on physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001). He has been critical of the role of humans in global warming and has dismissed the fear surrounding global warming, for example, in this statement on Larry King: "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves." He later told the San Diego Union-Tribune, "To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."

Now, I don't want to present this thread as a FUD piece, but I believe the following potential conflicts of interest need to be addressed if we are to continue to consider his opinion to be reliable. Similarly we can address the potential conflicts of other individuals in the IPCC.

-----

In a Harper's Magazine article, Ross Gelbspan made the following claims

• Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"
  
• Lindzen's "1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels"
  
• A speech Lindzen wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' "was underwritten by OPEC."
  

-----

PBS Frontline makes the following claims:

• "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation."
  
• Lindzen has "also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org, and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute", where he has served on the Science Advisory Board.*
  

* The George C. Marshall Institute receives substantial funding from the Earhart Foundation (money from White Star Oil Company) and the Exxon Education Foundation. The institute's CEO William O'Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil on the topics of "energy and environment".

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[RationalBiker]

Now, I don't want to present this thread as a FUD piece, but I believe the following potential conflicts of interest need to be addressed if we are to continue to consider his opinion to be reliable. Similarly we can address the potential conflicts of other individuals in the IPCC.

Do you have evidence that he derived his opinion as a result of monies received? Or, is it possible these various organizations provided him with contributions after they found that he supported a particular opinion that they also supported?

In other words, saying that he recieved money from these sources says nothing in and of itself.

What evidence do you propose beyond mere appearance?

[softwareNerd]

I think it will be really difficult to identify a single major figure in this debate who does not have some type of personal stake in the outcome. One should always be cautious when dealing with people: not all of them are honest. If Lindzen had argued for the other side, we would not know how many millions of his MIT budget depends on such argument.

In general, it is wrong to require people to be disinterested.

[brian0918]

Do you have evidence that he derived his opinion as a result of monies received? Or, is it possible these various organizations provided him with contributions after they found that he supported a particular opinion that they also supported?

In other words, saying that he recieved money from these sources says nothing in and of itself.

What evidence do you propose beyond mere appearance?

Unfortunately, true conflicts of interest are nearly impossible to identify with certainty. Short of having a "Burn, baby, burn"-esque audio tape confession, or a "Gimme Five" email trail, the most one can ever do when examining potential conflicts of interest in politics is to list the funding sources and look for commonalities - in this case, oil interests, and in particular Exxon. Thus we have large sites like OpenSecrets.Org that monitor who has given money to what politicians. This is the case with anything political, including the IPCC and its members, regardless of whether their individual opinions support or oppose the final statements of the IPCC report. Given no other choice, we should simply air on the side of caution and avoid citing such individuals as sources.

To make any progress with the limited information we have, what we can do is look at all the individuals who provided opinions, see what their funding sources are and have been in the past, and compare their opinions to these funding sources. If you see a lot of overlap, for example several companies with common interests funding individuals who later provided similar statements to the IPCC, this would be a good argument for a failure of impartiality. We could then debate whether or not the opinions of these individuals should be collectively disregarded in any such discussion of the topic.

Regarding your specific question about "is it possible these various organizations provided him with contributions after they found that he supported a particular opinion that they also supported", I know that the first source I mentioned is from 1995, so that is before he was involved in the IPCC assessment of 2001.

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

In general, it is wrong to require people to be disinterested.

In the scientific community, disinterest in the analysis of your own research is necessary. However, science says nothing about what you choose to research. Dayton Miller refused to disbelieve the ether theory for several decades after Einstein's theory came along, designing and executing test after test to determine with greater precision exactly which theory was more accurate.

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[RationalBiker]

If you see a lot of overlap, for example several companies with common interests funding individuals who later provided similar statements to the IPCC, this would be a good argument for a failure of impartiality.

No, it is not. You have to be able to ascertain whether his opinion was based on his funding, or his funding was based on his opinion. I realize I cannot convince you not to make some assumption in the matter short of a presentation of further facts, but I can point out to you that that is what it is, an assumption. I may be wrong, but the appearance to me is that you are already assuming a conflict of interest and you are asking others to disprove it. Rather, the burden of the accusation would rely on you.

Seeing a lot of overlap can as easily indicate a lot of support for an already derived opinion versus indictations of influence on said opinion.

[brian0918]

No, it is not. You have to be able to ascertain whether his opinion was based on his funding, or his funding was based on his opinion.

As I previously stated, this is nearly impossible, thus the need for sites like OpenSecrets.Org that provide funding information and allow people to discuss and come to their own conclusions about a possible conflict of interest. This is the thread for that discussion (or should be, at least).

I may be wrong, but the appearance to me is that you are already assuming a conflict of interest and you are asking others to disprove it.

No, after seeing the IPCC comments that Thales linked to, I don't know who to trust. I am simply asking for more discussion on the matter. If anyone can provide more information or insight either way, that would be helpful. I would expect the same discussion of possible conflicts of interest among individuals supporting an alternative view in the IPCC. This is the only way we can weed out unreliable sources, and narrow down the list to potentially reliable sources.

Seeing a lot of overlap can as easily indicate a lot of support for an already derived opinion versus indications of influence on said opinion.

That possibility is true, however it assumes that an individual is always going to hold the same view, which is something definitely not true in science, where new evidence continually modifies and overturns opinions. That is why it is reasonable for a scientist to say "I am and always have been a Democrat" or "I am and always have been a Republican", but not to say "I am and always have been a Lamarckian", for example. Put another way, your statement assumes that funding sources won't influence a person into continuing to hold a certain view despite newer and better research (even if its his own research).

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[RationalBiker]

Put another way, your statement assumes that funding sources won't be influence a person into continuing to hold a certain view despite newer and better research (even if its his own research).

No, actually it doesn't. Remember, I'm the one arguing not to assume anything based on the information provided so far. The fact that I only mentioned the polar opposite to a conflict of interest (and put the burden of the suggestion on the one who makes the suggestion) does not mean I assumed other possibilities did not exist within that spectrum.

In other words;

Person X has a viewpoint + people who share that view point contribute money to him = ??

The only apparent assumption made here is by you and it is reflected by this statement in your initial post:

but I believe the following potential conflicts of interest need to be addressed if we are to continue to consider his opinion to be reliable.

This implies that without any further information on the matter than you already have, you believe his opinion can no longer be considered reliable.

Edited February 5, 2008 by RationalBiker

[Thales]

That possibility is true, however it assumes that an individual is always going to hold the same view, which is something definitely not true in science, where new evidence continually modifies and overturns opinions. That is why it is reasonable for a scientist to say "I am and always have been a Democrat" or "I am and always have been a Republican", but not to say "I am and always have been a Lamarckian", for example. Put another way, your statement assumes that funding sources won't be influence a person into continuing to hold a certain view despite newer and better research (even if its his own research).

The best thing to do is observe Lindzen in action. He lays his arguments on the table. At the end of the day, he's one of the most heroic scientists alive today, because he goes against all opposition, and doesn't waver one iota from his rational conclusions despite any outside pressure. Lindzen has been an atmospheric scientist since the early 1960s, when there weren't that many, because the government only started pumping huge amounts of cash into it with the GW scare in the 1980s or so. This has resulted in the propagandizing of the field, and I get the impression Lindzen does not like what has happened to his once tranquil field.

But, anyway, this is typical of the left. Their method is not to take on arguments, but to destroy reputations.

[brian0918]

No, actually it doesn't. Remember, I'm the one arguing not to assume anything based on the information provided so far.

The "information provided so far" includes Person X's viewpoint. For me, we cannot accept or reject an opinion unless and until identified potential conflicts of interest are examined, clarified, and determined to be valid or invalid.

Person X has a viewpoint + people who share that view point contribute money to him = ??

Yes, the result of that equation would be nice to know for sure, but as I have said twice already, that is nearly impossible to determine.

So, given the obvious potential for a conflict of interest to occur (a company funding a person who later provides a view that is politically helpful to the company), and assuming we get no more information, should we accept the view as uncompromised, err on the side of caution and reject it, or put it aside until more information comes to light?

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

But, anyway, this is typical of the left. Their method is not to take on arguments, but to destroy reputations.

because he goes against all opposition

Isn't this redundant? Do you have an example of someone whose opinion does not go against its opposing opinions?

and doesn't waver one iota from his rational conclusions...

This begs the question. Without being impartial experts ourselves, we cannot determine whether his conclusions are rational. In this thread I am simply trying to determine whether there is the potential for a conflict of interest to influence his statements. Even if you agree with his conclusions, a conflict of interest is still possible and should be explored.

Lindzen has been an atmospheric scientist since the early 1960s, when there weren't that many, because the government only started pumping huge amounts of cash into it with the GW scare in the 1980s or so.

This does not change the fact that financial sources include companies that have a political interest in what he tells governments. We should try to determine to what extent, if any, these financial sources have influenced his statements to governments and intergovernmental panels.

I get the impression Lindzen does not like what has happened to his once tranquil field.

That would be very interesting if true, although not related to the discussion here. What sources do you have for this?

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[Thales]

This is the left's method. They attack the character of all of their opponents. All of the out spoken anti-catastrophic warming scientists have had their honor questioned, but in terms of dealing with the science of these people, the pro-AGW people don’t do well.

Isn't this redundant? Do you have an example of someone whose opinion does not go against its opposing opinions?

Excuse me? He's stood up against many smearers and propagandists. For example, Oppenheimer made the claim to Lindzen that he had no credentials. Clearly a preposterous statement, since he was dealing with one of the foremost experts in the field.

This begs the question. Without being impartial experts ourselves, we cannot determine whether his conclusions are rational. In this thread I am simply trying to determine whether there is the potential for a conflict of interest to influence his statements. Even if you agree with his conclusions, a conflict of interest is still possible and should be explored.

I disagree that you can't assess his argument. You can assess his arguments for their logical consistency. If you've had math and science, you can make deeper assessments. If you've had lots of math and science, then you are in even better shape to make assessments.

This does not change the fact that financial sources include companies that have a political interest in what he tells governments. We should try to determine to what extent, if any, these financial sources have influenced his statements to governments and intergovernmental panels.

Who is he supposed to be financed by? Assuming all of these allegations are right, of course.

My assessment of him is that he's a hard nosed scientist who doesn't suffer fools.

That would be very interesting if true, although not related to the discussion here. What sources do you have for this?

It's my impression. My only source is my own assessment of his various responses to what is going on around him. He's very contemptuous of people like Al Gore.

[DragonMaci]

The best thing to do is observe Lindzen in action. He lays his arguments on the table. At the end of the day, he's one of the most heroic scientists alive today...

Well, said. A man's actions say a lot about him. To quote Terry Goodkind, "Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie. People will lie to deceive you from what they truly mean to do. Watching the actions they take will prove their true intentions." I'd like to add that deeds will confirm an honest statement, and this is what you seem to be suggesting is the case for Lindzen. I don't know if that is true or not, but you are right to say to mind his actions.

[DragonMaci]

Brian, I have this to say to you:

Even if he got sponsorship from oil companies, that doesn't mean there is necessarily a conflict of interests. It is possible that they funded him with the hope and expectation that he'd make the findings that he as, but left him to his own devices, and he objectively came to the conclusions they wanted. I am not sure if that is the case since I don't know what his conclusions are, but that is besides the point. The point is that in cases like that we have to consider that it might be the case.

[DragonMaci]

My assessment of him is that he's a hard nosed scientist who doesn't suffer fools.

It's my impression. My only source is my own assessment of his various responses to what is going on around him. He's very contemptuous of people like Al Gore.

My kind of scientist.

The first statement alone is enough for me to get some liking for him, but the second statement makes that doubly true.

[DavidV]

In the scientific community, disinterest in the analysis of your own research is necessary.

This is nonsense. No scientist spends his lifetime in dedication to his research without a passionate interest in the outcome. It is neither possible nor desirable for scientists to be robots, without a personal, emotional interest in their work and its validity. What science requires is not "disinterest" but honesty and integrity - the refusal to lie to oneself. In that regard, science is no different from any other aspect of human life.

Unfortunately, self-deception is the essence of government-funded science, as it forces scientists to work not on what they believe is true and interesting, but what is politically popular and acceptable.

[brian0918]

Reply to Thales:

This is the left's method. They attack the character of all of their opponents.

I cannot speak for "the left", but I have made no assumptions about the validity of the potential for conflict of interest. We are here to discuss further whether this potential is real and what to do, if anything, based on that knowledge.

All of the out spoken anti-catastrophic warming scientists have had their honor questioned

I am not presuming whether or not such scientists are in accordance with principles of honor. That question is irrelevant to the discussion here.

Excuse me?

You said he "goes against [ie, opposes] his opponents". Everyone opposes their opponents. That is the only thing to which I was responding.

I disagree that you can't assess his argument. You can assess his arguments for their logical consistency. If you've had math and science, you can make deeper assessments. If you've had lots of math and science, then you are in even better shape to make assessments.

Having had "lots of math and science" does not compare to be a professor or an expert in the field. I have a degree in physics but know nothing beyond the lingo when it comes to string theory, quantum loop gravity, or any specialized fields. This is the case in every scientific discipline, and particularly in one dealing with chaotic motion on large scales. An expert on aerodynamics may have a rudimentary understanding of the physics underlying the development of hurricanes, but will not know anything about dynamic large-scale climate changes over time, nor anything about the smale-scale chaotic motion observed in plasma physics.

Who is he supposed to be financed by? Assuming all of these allegations are right, of course.

See the allegations in my original post. They cite the following: "oil and coal interests... Western Fuels... OPEC... ExxonMobil... Daimler Chrysler... George C. Marshall Institute... Earhart Foundation (White Star Oil Company money)... Exxon Education Foundation"

My assessment of him is that he's a hard nosed scientist who doesn't suffer fools.

An individual's toughness, practicality, or desire not to tolerate "fools" does not preclude the potential conflict of interest of my original post. That is what I am trying to investigate here.

It's my impression. My only source is my own assessment of his various responses to what is going on around him. He's very contemptuous of people like Al Gore.

What do you mean by "people like Al Gore"? White men? People who invented the internet? People with boring movies? Failed presidential candidates? Please be more specific.

Reply to DragonMaci:

Even if he got sponsorship from oil companies, that doesn't mean there is necessarily a conflict of interests.

Yes. I said that in my original statement. I have said it multiple times now.

It is possible that they funded him with the hope and expectation that he'd make the findings that he as, but left him to his own devices, and he objectively came to the conclusions they wanted.

Yes. That is possible. Any explanation is possible. We cannot presume without evidence which possibility is the correct one, however. The whole point of starting this thread was to try to figure this out.

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[RationalBiker]

For me, we cannot accept or reject an opinion unless and until identified potential conflicts of interest are examined, clarified, and determined to be valid or invalid.

Okay, but that is not consistent with this statement;

but I believe the following potential conflicts of interest need to be addressed if we are to continue to consider his opinion to be reliable.

That latter says without further information his opinion is unreliable whereas the former states that no evaluation as to it's reliability can be assessed without further information. Which one do you mean?

Aside from that, to "continue" to consider his opinion reliable, one had to have considered it reliable to begin with. Did you consider his opinion reliable before, and if so why?

(a company funding a person who later provides a view that is politically helpful to the company)

So do you have more information than you included in your original post? Did he only provide a view that was politically helpful to the company AFTER they provided him with money, or did he have that view beforehand?

Apart from all this "follow the money" talk, I think a more accurate gauge of his viewpoint would be to compare his opinion to known facts. The innuendo of "potential conflicts of interest" really get us nowhere.

So if I understand your opinion so far, we common folks can't know enough about GW to decide for ourselves what to believe so we should rely on experts. Next, it's nearly impossible to know if an actual conflict of interest exists so we either can't evaluate someone's viewpoint without validating or invalidity such allegations OR we can assume they are unreliable if we cannot validate or invalidate potential conflicts of interests. In light of not being able to know either of these things for ourselves, that leaves us with just kind of picking who we want to believe in. Did I leave anything out? Based on your contributions so far, and I may be wrong, it appears you believe there is a problem with GW. If I have interpreted that right, how have you come to believe this in light of differing opinions on the matter? Simply consensus? What?

[brian0918]

This is nonsense. No scientist spends his lifetime in dedication to his research without a passionate interest in the outcome.

Scientists choose disciplines they are interested. They can be interested in doing the research, they can be interested in the results. But they should not be interested in the analysis of the research (as I originally stated); ie, they should not be interested in the interpretation of the results of their work beyond how best to come to the most precise, correct, impartial conclusion possible.

What science requires is not "disinterest" but honesty and integrity - the refusal to lie to oneself.

In science it becomes easy to lie to oneself without knowing it, through error propagation for example. This is exactly what happened to Dayton Miller. He refused to accept Einsteinian theory, and for decades he continually found evidence for the ether, even to the end of his life. Later analysis discovered systematic errors that Miller should have noticed, but didn't. Why he didn't is up for discussion.

Unfortunately, self-deception is the essence of government-funded science, as it forces scientists to work not on what they believe is true and interesting, but what is politically popular and acceptable.

Self-deception is possible anywhere. It is particularly possible when motivated by politics or money. Not only can one be influenced by what is politically popular and acceptable, but also by what is financially practical (in any sense of the word).

[brian0918]

That latter says without further information his opinion is unreliable

It is a conditional ("if... then") statement. It cannot possibly be making an assertion either way, and it doesn't. In any case, we have three choices: accept as reliable, reject as unreliable, or put aside until more information is available.

Aside from that, to "continue" to consider his opinion reliable, one had to have considered it reliable to begin with.

That was unclear wording on my part, but I did not catch that ambiguity until after the time when my original post could still be edited.

So do you have more information than you included in your original post? Did he only provide a view that was politically helpful to the company AFTER they provided him with money, or did he have that view beforehand?

That was the point of my original post: to find out more information and discuss that information. I don't know what view he had beforehand, but I'm sure it would be useful to this discussion.

So if I understand your opinion so far, we common folks can't know enough about GW to decide for ourselves what to believe so we should rely on experts.

If one had all the understanding necessary to independently come to an impartial conclusion, one would not need to mention an expert by name at all. Experts are able to explain from beginning to end everything to the satisfaction of another expert.

Next, it's nearly impossible to know if an actual conflict of interest exists so we either can't evaluate someone's viewpoint without validating or invalidity such allegations OR we can assume they are unreliable if we cannot validate or invalidate potential conflicts of interests. In light of not being able to know either of these things for ourselves, that leaves us with just kind of picking who we want to believe in.

Your second sentence contradicts your first. You cannot possibly hold the first sentence to be true and then "pick who you want to believe in".

Based on your contributions so far, and I may be wrong, it appears you believe there is a problem with GW.

I may have in the past, but that has been made more doubtful since I have seen the crude unscientific nature in which the IPCC consultation of experts has been conducted. Now I don't know who or what to believe, but I would like to narrow it down at least. Thus the point of my original post.

Edited February 5, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

Unfortunately, true conflicts of interest are nearly impossible to identify with certainty.

This is why the notion of "conflict of interest" is a fairly vile one. The underlying presumption is that if a person may make a choice that benefits him, that is a conflict of interest and therefore anyone with a conflict of interest should not be allowed to make a choice that can affect another person, and their opinion on a matter should be disregarded. However, the anti-concept "conflict of interest" is usually applied only with reference to financial benefit. I've never understood the reasoning behind that. I think people are more likely to be corrupt and dishonest for a political conviction than for money, because it's so easy to get away with. There is a huge conflict of interest when it comes to GW scientists, that on the one hand they have a personal political agenda that is best served by twisting the results one way, whereas the interests of those interested in the truth is the opposite.

This is why I think one should put one's trust in the facts. Accusations of "conflict of interest" and the implication that someone is engagaing in fraudulent research is a two-edges sword, which will decapitate the GW crowd very quickly. It's because of the political conflict of interest that the conclusions drawn about GW made by people such as Susan Solomon cannot be accepted at face value -- their agenda conflicts with scientific objectivity.

[DragonMaci]

Yes. That is possible. Any explanation is possible. We cannot presume without evidence which possibility is the correct one, however. The whole point of starting this thread was to try to figure this out.

I didn't presume anything. I was only adding another possibility to the ones you listed.

[DragonMaci]

Your second sentence contradicts your first. You cannot possibly hold the first sentence to be true and then "pick who you want to believe in

Wrong. You can pick out of emotion, or arbitarily, or some other invalid means. I believe that is what RationalBiker meant.

[RationalBiker]

Your second sentence contradicts your first. You cannot possibly hold the first sentence to be true and then "pick who you want to believe in".

Remember, I was summarizing your position, not stating my own. They are not "my sentences" in that regard. Therefore, if those sentences misrepresent your position, please clarify how.

[brian0918]

Wrong. You can pick out of emotion, or arbitarily, or some other invalid means. I believe that is what RationalBiker meant.

I didn't realize until after that post that I forgot to specify the word "rationally" in that sentence. Of course you can pick a choice based solely on emotion, but then you will have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than a vote, which is of no importance to the rest of those involved in the discussion.