<p>“most doctors could become mechanics” Probably not. I know several that would have a tough time passing the “square peg in the square hole” test.</p>
<p>Hahah, true. But still, the point being that given enough time most of us could do many things we pay others to do.</p>
<p>I don’t know
As long as you didn’t care how long it took to get your car fixed because the mechanic found something else that he wanted to explore first.</p>
<p>I know a doctor who has a phD in physics and teaches in both the medical and engineering schools & his sense of time is a bit uh- fluid. 
Of course perhaps physicists are just operating in a different dimension?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Richard Lindzen is a total hack. He is the greatest sellout in science today, and whatever stance you may take in this argument, if we can all just get past the fact that Lindzen is a horrible, horrible man and ignore him, we’ll all be better off.</p>
<p>Calling a top ranking MIT prof and NAS member a “total hack” is totally ignorant. Does that also apply to Reid Bryson whio has similar views and qualifications?</p>
<p>[Reid</a> Bryson](<a href=“http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html]Reid”>http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html)</p>
<p>“Richard Lindzen is a total hack. He is the greatest sellout in science today, and whatever stance you may take in this argument, if we can all just get past the fact that Lindzen is a horrible, horrible man and ignore him, we’ll all be better off.”</p>
<p>This post is a perfect example of why those who are suspect of the global warming theories and their doom and gloom scenarios have those feelings. When any scientist (not just Lindzen) who doesn’t march to the beat of the religious fervor of the left is demonized like this, it is quite telling that the argument has left the realm of science and entered the realm of politics, hate and willful ignorance.</p>
<p>Don’t know about whether there is global warming or cooling. But for the past few days, we’ve had 50+ degree weather in Boston. If it lasts, the crocuses are going to bloom prematurely.</p>
<p>It is an accepted fact that urban areas- with less permeable surface give off more heat.</p>
<p>Does anyone disagree with this?</p>
<p>So wouldn’t it make sense that as we see urban cities expand in size and density that heat would increase?</p>
<p>[Measuring</a> Heat Islands | Heat Island Effect | U.S. EPA](<a href=“http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/measurement.html]Measuring”>http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/measurement.html)</p>
<p>I have learned that the weather in Snoqualmie and downtown Seattle often vary greatly.</p>
<p>fundingfather,</p>
<p>Let’s not get too hasty here. The same thing occurs on the other end of the spectrum as well. That doesn’t mean that I condone any of it, but it’s not like groupthink is special to the left.</p>
<p>It still does not, however, answer whether or not he is actually a hack. Not everyone at good universities/research organizations is qualified to discuss specific positions. Look at Watson on race or Pauling on vitamin C…</p>
<p>Lindzen hardly seems out of his area.</p>
<p>"He has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, and their roles in climate change, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.[2]</p>
<p>He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy.[3] He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the “IPCC Second Assessment”, “Climate Change 1995”. He is known for pioneering the study of ozone photochemistry,[4] and advised several student theses on the subject.[5]</p>
<p>Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, and American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University"
wikipedia</p>
<p>This still does not, of course, make him right. Nor does it make him wrong.</p>
<p>I’m saying that you’re guilty of the same appeal to authority as the left that is decried.</p>
<p>This is the problem with the global warming debate: most of us are laymen who don’t really know what to believe. Nor do we have the time to all get PhDs in some applicable science and actually have the mental tools available to say something meaningful.</p>
<p>No, but it does make him one of many experts and not some crank talking out of his area of expertise.</p>
<p>Lindzen is also “skeptical” about the connection between smoking and cancer.
You might be interested in perusing what other scientists think of his use of “alarmist” and other loaded terminology, as well as the quality of his science. [RealClimate</a> » Richard Lindzens HoL testimony](<a href=“RealClimate: Richard Lindzen’s HoL testimony”>RealClimate: Richard Lindzen’s HoL testimony) And his response to being proven wrong with one of his own theories?
[Seed:</a> The Contrarian](<a href=“Wallpapers.com | 1,500,000+ Free HD Wallpapers for Desktop, Mobiles & Tablets”>[1300+] Background Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com)</p>
<p>“Let’s not get too hasty here. The same thing occurs on the other end of the spectrum as well. That doesn’t mean that I condone any of it, but it’s not like groupthink is special to the left.”</p>
<p>Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall anyone calling scientists that are global warming proponents “hacks” and “evil”. In fact, I don’t recall any pejoratives hurled at them or even suggestions that they stop their studies. That’s what science is all about - you don’t come to an answer by excluding a whole segment of research.</p>
<p>“I’m saying that you’re guilty of the same appeal to authority as the left that is decried.”</p>
<p>Again, I don’t recall anyone decrying anything. The objection is to those on the left who want to shut out any conflicting opinion or research.</p>
<p>fundingfather,</p>
<p>I’ve seen at least a few people call global warming proponents hacks. Perhaps not on this thread, but it certainly happens. At the very least, they’re commonly accused of groupthink and other such scientific crimes all the time.</p>
<p>He was skeptical of second hand smoke and cancer. Big difference. Also that speaks more to talking out of your area of expertise than anything germane.</p>
<p>Please look at every thought of every scientist and see who has not changed their mind over time. Even Einstein made errors.</p>
<p>
I’m sorry - did I just imagine all the people (including Lindzen) calling any scientist expressing support for the global warming theory an “alarmist?” Did I imagine all of the suggestions and out-and-out assertions that scientists just agree with global warming theory because they’ll get paid big bucks for going along with the “politically driven” theory? I don’t think so. I think those exact phrases and accusations have been posted right here on CC, as well as being spread by Fox News’ “science columnist” Steven Milloy and others.</p>
<p>The tactics used to undermine the public’s confidence in the scientific consensus about global warming are exactly the same tactics used so long, and so effectively by (in many cases) the exact same men who worked for big Tobacco at undermining the public’s confidence in the scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer. When science and profits collide there’s always going to be a propaganda campaign. This is no different.</p>
<p>I grew up in the old tobacco days and I am pretty sure 90+% of smokers knew that they probably caused cancer as they used to call them “coffin nails” and “cancer sticks” and I’m not talking about the cream of educated society. The gulf between the science supporting that and the warming theories is wider than an ocean.</p>
<p>I am backing out of this thread because I concede UCLAri’s point. I do not have the tools to participate in this debate. However, the (U.S. is causing) Global Warming movement has two: Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev (founder of Green Cross International). Personally, I think that the movement is Gorby’s way of getting back at us for Afghanistan in the 80’s.</p>