Reliability of Richard Lindzen

[brian0918]

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.

The second sentence is incorrect. If the discussion goes nowhere, you can do nothing with his opinion but set it aside until more information is gathered. It is neither accepted as reliable or rejected as unreliable. Does this make sense?

[brian0918]

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.

This is true in science where everyone is basically counting on everyone else to be impartial and forthcoming. Sure, people do misrepresent in science, particularly for financial or political gain, but they are eventually weeded out.

However, the anti-concept "conflict of interest" is usually applied only with reference to financial benefit.

There are numerous examples in just the last decade of huge conflicts of interest for financial benefit as well as political benefit.

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.

I am not sure how this applies to the scientists supporting the claims of GW. Can you clarify? Are GW scientists being given positions of power for their opinions? For me it seems more likely that they would be getting financial support than to be appointed ambassador to some country. What specifically do you suggest the GW scientists would be getting in return for their opinions?

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.

If it does, so be it. The less crap in the system, the better. We should not permit conflict of interest regardless of the side its on. Do you agree?

[DavidOdden]

This is true in science where everyone is basically counting on everyone else to be impartial and forthcoming. Sure, people do misrepresent in science, particularly for financial or political gain, but they are eventually weeded out.

Can we assume then that you reject the scurrilous implication that Lindzer's opinion is trustworthy because of alleged "conflict of interest"?

I am not sure how this applies to the scientists supporting the claims of GW.

It applies to scientists who do not follow the objective facts; whose interpretation of the data (which vastly underdetermines the conclusion) set forth a conclusion as though it were well supported. What those scientists would be getting, in return for their corruption of the scientific process, is variable. Money, power, personal satisfaction at stopping industry. The accusation is that Lindzer has been corrupted; but the same accusation can be leveled against the GW guys.

If it does, so be it. The less crap in the system, the better. We should not permit conflict of interest regardless of the side its on. Do you agree?

No, the whole anti-concept of "conflict of interest" is wrong. Is the problem that you don't understand what "conflict of interest" really means? 'Cuz there definitely is no "conflict of interest" involving Lindzer.

FYI, "conflict of interest" is simply an expression that can be freely leveled against anyone you want to thwart. You simply need to imply that a person has an impure motive in making a choice, and there is no necessity of proving that the person actually engaged in any form dishonesty. Thus recommending or hiring Smith over Jones could be called a "conflict of interest" if Smith supports your theory and Jones doesn't.

[Thales]

Reply to Thales:

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.

I think the proper way to go about this is to assume a person's character is good unless shown otherwise.

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

I don't see how that could be.

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

What I said was

"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"

What I mean is he doesn't buckle under to pressure. He doesn't shy away from confrontation. He stands in their and gives it to you straight, no matter the kind of attacks he receives. All too many people buckle under to pressure.

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.

It's not on the same level, but having a degree in physics gives you many tools with which to deal with the issues in climate science to a much higher level than someone with no expertise. You can read the graphs, understand the math, and get a basic understanding. I have a degree in EE and I've studied a great deal of math and physics. These things are to my advantage when it comes to studying the issue of GW.

What is foolish is pretending you know less than you know and letting "experts" run rough shod over you. That's what would happen in this case if we just believe the "experts" blindly.

Or, let me give it to you this way. I've been studying GW for some time, and I find I can understand the issue. The more I study it, the deeper my understanding gets. It ain't magic.

It gets back to what Ayn Rand said, paraphrasing, “environmentalists use the prestige of science to scare people”. This is exactly right. They are using the prestige of science, not actual science, because they know this is a means to gaining power.

Concerning the proper approach of a scientist, it should be Aristotelian, i.e. a scientist should have the passionate desire to pursue the passionless truth.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Thales

[DragonMaci]

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.

Ah, well that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[adrock3215]

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".

Per quarter ExxonMobil sends government upwards of $25 billion in revenue when one takes into account taxes on income, excise taxes, and miscelleanous other taxes. Is there not a conflict of interest here as well?

[Inspector]

The accusation is that Lindzer has been corrupted; but the same accusation can be leveled against the GW guys.

Bold added.

I'm surprised it took this long for that fact to come up in this thread.

The amount of money and political pressure on the AGW side of the debate utterly dwarfs anything to be seen on the climate heretic side. To claim that the heretics are "corrupted" by financing is ludicrous, given that the other side is more than ten times worse in that regard.

[Thales]

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.

Mine too. He's objective, but not dispassionate.

It gets back to what Ayn Rand said, paraphrasing, “environmentalists use the prestige of science to scare people”. This is exactly right. They are using the prestige of science, not actual science, because they know this is a means to gaining power.

This line is somewhat juxtaposed. What I should have pointed out is that you need to arm yourself with facts to deal with those who would use science to scare you, and having the ability to understand the arguments more deeply gives you all the more ability to do that.

[DragonMaci]

Mine too. He's objective, but not dispassionate.

Well, I wouldn't know about that since I hadn't heard of him until today. However, the two statements I replied to make for a scientist that is to my liking. However, if he is objective and not dispassionate, then that is even more true.