Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17666)	11/22/2007 10:56:12 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Here is a good summary of Lindzen for you: The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree. Annan offered to pay if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only take 50 to 1 odds on global temperatures in 20 years being lower than they are now. Lindzen replied to Annan "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."[17] Lindzen offered Annan an alternative bet. If the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C and 0.4 °C the bet would be off. And if the temperature change were 0.4 °C or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds.[18] LOL! In the end Lindzen wanted to win (at 2:1 odds in his favor) even if the temp went up 0.2. Further, he would loose nothing if it went up 0.2 to 0.4. Since we've seen 0.6 in 100 years, 0.4 in 20 years with 2:1 odds looks like he really believes his own crap doesn't it! ROTFLMAO! He's your man though!

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17666)	11/22/2007 11:03:43 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Lindzen is a fruitcake. I wish I could bait him the way I flunked LindyBill on this thread: Is it safe to raise kids in a smoke filled environment? From Wikipedia on Richard Lindzen: Lindzen has claimed that the risks of passive smoking are overstated. In 2001,[19] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[19] A 1991 article in Consumers' Research entitled "Passive Smoking: How Great a Hazard?" is also sometimes used to characterize Richard Lindzen as a tobacco spokesperson or expert. That article says, "Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave society with a resource of some importance diminished. The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies." The article concludes with the statement, "Such has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke."[20] However, Lindzen is not being directly quoted in the article, and the pro-tobacco views in that case are those of the article's authors, not necessarily Lindzen.