Is Climate Science Being exploited for Political reasons?

Dr. Lindzen with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has come out with what I find to be a very interesting and inforamtive article. He likens the current political environment around Climate Science to the eugenics and Lysenkoism.

In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.

So, do you beleive as Lindzen does, that Climate Scinece has been coopted for political reasons?

21 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    gcnp58 clearly gives the best--and most frightening answer. It's amazing that some nutjob Republican from Texas thinks he can do a better job evaluating scientific projects than can scientists.

    By the way, did anyone else notice that Lindzen didn't even get the caption right on his own Figure 4? Perhaps if there were some form of peer review from those "physicians and surgeons" they might have noticed that. I suspect that approval for the article was rubber-stamped just as soon as they saw the author and the title.

    By the way, if people are unfamiliar with the esteemed "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" it was founded with the goal to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine." Along the way articles in the "journal" have also tried to convince us that HIV does not cause AIDS and being gay shortens your life span. Oh, and they're also associated with infamous "Oregon Petition" that is so admired by people without an ounce of integrity.

    The Association is a right wing political organization that masquerades as a medical society, clearly the perfect ones to be judging whether climate science has been co-opted.

    EDIT: Kano says:

    "In fact without the internet and blogs none of us would even know who Lindzen, Spencer or Christy was"

    And that would probably be a good thing.

    EDIT for Pindar: Your answer is just a lie. If you insist on lying, you should either become more

    sophisticated or more incomprehensible, saying something that is obviously a lie is just dumb.

    Another EDIT for Pindar and Sagebrush: Its VERY easy to prove that Pindar is lying. Here's a link to the Journal of Climate table of contents for the current issue:

    Pindar, if you think that climate science is entirely political and not scientific, please demonstrate that for EVERY paper in this journal. I'll be very interested in how you prove that such articles as "Impact of Rossby Wave Breaking on U.S. West Coast Winter Precipitation during ENSO Events" or "Comparing Cyclone Life Cycle Characteristics and Their Interannual Variability in Different Reanalyses" are politics and not science.

    If you can't do that, your statement is a blatant lie, which makes you a liar.

    After you've finished with that (ha ha!), you can go back through my questions and answers and tell us one of my "lies." You'll notice that MY questions and answers are open for inspection, while yours are kept hidden. I wonder why?

    SAGEBRUSH: You don't have to pay to read the titles and abstracts, and you could always get off your rear end and go to a library to read the journal. The point is that these articles are SCIENCE and they have nothing to do with POLITICS and so Pindar is LYING. (Of course you're a proven liar too.)

  • Kano
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    If our planet gets colder, it will be bad for us, millions will suffer, however it is what I hope happens just so everyone can realize what a debacle this global warming/climate change is, how it has been co-opted by different groups for their own personal advantages, and how there has been so much propaganda/brainwashing with almost total (until now anyway) suppression of conflicting evidence/discussion, with politics and media completely denying any right of reply.

    In fact without the internet and blogs none of us would even know who Lindzen, Spencer or Christy was.

    Actually the situation must be changing, because I doubt it would have been possible to get this article published a few years ago.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Well let's see!!!! Lindzen is a diehard denier, associated with the cato Institute, which is another think tank supported by big oil. That in itself makes his opinion decidedly political on the side of big oil against the truth of AGW

    He is a doctor of mathematics and not trained to be a climatologist. In other words, he is a big oil supporter and big oil and coal have been the recipients of more political advantage and subsidies and investor tax breaks than any one industry besides tobacco. Just another useless denier spreading lies on behalf of big oil. Shooting is too good for him and his followers

    **** so did you alert all the deniers about this post. I spoke the truth and got 8 thumbs down.

  • 7 years ago

    I wouldn't be surprised, politicians make any excuse to make a new tax. It isn't even concrete evidence than CO2 increases temperature. How do they even know the temperature hundreds of thousands of years ago? They just measure the CO2 concentration within air pockets of ice cores correct? Although other factors which influence temperature (e.g. Altitude) also change over time, thus how accurate can predictions be?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Yes , You have Micheal Mann and Helen Cullen on Ajazzera TV making claims

    that some storms were caused by global warming . They had no proof .

    Then Sheldon Whitehose (D) senator making all sorts of claims .

    Al Sharpton Climate Scientist says the same things .

    Ed Markey wants to base legislation on Climate models that never come true .

  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Lindzen seems to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this one. This group is pretty much equal in craziness as the entire Monckton charade has been. Regardless I will answer your question.

    Yes, I think climate science has been used to push political extremes on both sides. It has occurred with virtually every other science in existence. Why would climatology be left out? If people are aware of something they will put their money into it as well as and politics. This is no different from anything else. You have to pick your sources. sources with large scientific credentials, such as university sites or government sites, have quite a lot more going for them than things such as the OISM project and their various other associated 'anti-socialist' groups.

    Sagebrush: You are far from a true scientist. You have said before that God controls the temperature. You put your bible ahead of scientific data. You ignore any form of real data that does not meet your preconceived notions. you disregard any real source of scientific information and call the data I supply made up or doctored. You think anything that goes against your core beliefs is a left-leaning liberal socialist conspiracy. And you continue to attempt to get underneath other people's skins. I allowed you to do it at one time. Now, though, I refuse to sink to your level. Troll away good sir.

  • 7 years ago

    Judging from the answers here, it is the overwhelming opinion of those who have been sold their opinion by politically motivated non-scientists.

  • Rio
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Of course, but the issue has to be addressed by both platforms. I don't see it as being a legacy issue with the Republicans. The alternative would be a failed attempt by the Democrats. After all the US is close to being free from oil dependence and its not from renewables. Which I have nothing against by the way. It's just listening to alarmist humdrum about how simple and easy it is to make a transition. Obviously they don't practice applicable physics on any type of engineering level.

  • 7 years ago

    I'm not convinced that he intends to convey that the co-opting of climate science is entirely for political reasons. Different groups have different motives, and the political benefits are certainly a part of the whole. Consider:

    "Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal."

    This aptly describes much of the current state of the debate surrounding CAGW, particularly here on YA. Some groups benefit by acquiring what Nathaniel Brandon calls a 'pseudo-self esteem'; a sense of self-worth based on demonstrated adherence to a socially-acceptable set of values. This may explain why so much of the dialog has descended into the ad hominem. To point out flaws and contradictions within the belief system goes far beyond making the other 'wrong'; it tugs on the bottom card of a house of cards that is the false source of their sense of self. The fear of psychic annihilation is a powerful motivator. Those who threaten it cannot just be disagreed with, they must be 'destroyed'.

    Source(s): Branden, N. "The psychology of self esteem"
  • 7 years ago

    I love his realistic approach, "science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry." Can anyone say it isn't?

    No wonder the lefties hate him. (I would say lefties and greenies, but that would be redundant.)

    Jeff M: <Yes, I think climate science has been used to push political extremes on both sides. It has occurred with virtually every other science in existence.>

    1. That is a lame excuse for doing something. (Everybody does it.) So it gives you carte blanc to foist distorted graphs and opinions on others, because everyone does it?

    2. What political agenda have I or other true scientists on this site pushed for? We have asked for politics to stay out of it. Politicians have proven inept at solving any crises, but more than genius at creating them. And as Lindzen points out, there are willing scientists, eager to cast their integrity out the window for 15 minutes of fame or, as in James Hansen's case, hard cash.

    Baccy Baby: As long as you are bringing up the defining issue, why don't you 'saviors of the earth' define Climate Change. (Other than the UN-IPCC's, "Climate Change is a change in climate.")

    In the article, in the pictorial it states that scientists make 'meaningless or ambiguous' claims. How much more ambiguous can you get than 'Climate Change'? That is as ambiguous as anyone can get. But it sure fools the idiots.

    Your response just gives more credence to what Lindzen says.

    Peggy: Calling Pindar a liar is not following the rules of Y!A. (especially without proof.) (Of course, you are one of the protected species of Y!A. So it would do no good to complain.)

    Secondly, your response clearly shows that you have no scientific background and should stay off this site, unless you confess that you really are a lay person.

    Dork: If you don't have anything scientific to say, just start your character assassination routine. Ha! Ha! You are so visible.

    Jeff M: Yes I do put God in front of scientific data. Especially since the earth has cooled for over a decade, and many of these 'scientists' don't even know it. Many of them are out looking for some missing heat. Ha! Ha! Our Creator knows everything down to the hairs on our head, and yet fools are looking for missing links and heat because of unproven man made theories. Man has theories about how things happen, our Creator MADE them happen. Who do you think I am going to listen to? You? Or the one who has proven his knowledge? You who can only come up with corrupt charts, or one who has proven that he can flood the earth when he wanted to? Does any scientist or group of scientists today have such power?

    He has proven what the earth can do. Man in all his wisdom can't even make a computer model to match the earth. So which one would a smart person believe, data that has proven insufficient, or the proven seasons and other proven works of our heavenly creator.

    Jeff M: There is an old saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." According to you 'data' the earth's temperature corresponds to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to this Earth, which God created, the temperature has gone down, even you are looking for the missing heat, yet the CO2 level has gone up. Even a foolish person could see which one to trust in.

    Peggy: Ha! Ha! That link you provided requires you to PAY. And yet you challenge us to reply to every paper? Ha! Ha! As for me, I am not on the gravy train that you obviously are on and cannot afford it. You are a cheap shot artist!

    Ha! Ha! Just look at Peggy. He wants us to determine his side of the issue by just looking at titles. Now how is that for science? He is worse than a cheap shot artist.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.