Talk:Richard Lindzen

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Richard Lindzen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619054256/http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf to http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524223414/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091703C to http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=091703C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718191204/http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf to http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618014350/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Lindzen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918000835/http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1980/sbf8001.pdf to http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1980/sbf8001.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223145833/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

11 scientists

"In 2001, Lindzen along with 11 scientists prepared a report urging the Bush Administration"

Who are those scientists? Are they microbiologists or solid-state physicists, or do they have any expertise regarding climate? Do they work for denial think tanks, like Lindzen did? The source, The Wall Street Journal, a notorious denier outfit and not a reliable source when it comes to climatology, does not say. I don't think we should just repeat their propaganda wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10139 Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: This is often a problem with denialist articles; last year I cleaned up William Happer, which had lots of primary sourced "this is a thing he said" comments, assembled with no identifiable principle, and misuse of secondary sources. Possibly, a similar trimming would be a good idea in this article, too. (I admit to not looking carefully at the existing sourcing here before writing this comment.) --JBL (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Okayy... the number is the same. Lindzen plus 11. But it does not seem to say what the WSJ says it says.

When I look at the Wikipedia articles of the people involved, I get this:

Ralph Cicerone: "In 2001, while chancellor of UCI, Dr. Cicerone led an academy panel, commissioned by President George W. Bush, tasked with reporting to him on climate change. The panel concluded unequivocally that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."[3]"

Eric J. Barron: Nothing specific.

Robert E. Dickinson: Nothing specific.

Inez Fung: Nothing specific.

James Hansen: "He was a critic of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations' stances on climate change.[73] Addressing the potential effects of climate change, Hansen has stated in an interview in January, 2009, "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."[74]"

Thomas R. Karl: Nothing specific.

James C. McWilliams: Nothing specific.

F. Sherwood Rowland: Not even any mention of climate, only weather.

Edward S. Sarachik: We do not have page on him at the moment, but Google says he writes books about "The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon".

John Michael Wallace: Nothing specific.

So, of all the articles on people in the panel, two mention the panel, Cicerone and Lindzen. Lindzen is the only one who is on the List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. And the Lindzen article quotes the Wall Street Journal taking Lindzen's opinion on Kyoto and multiplying it by 12.

Your link says nothing about "urging not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol". It does mention Kyoto, but it says the IPCC was "influential in international negotiations related to the Kyoto protocol" and "does an admirable job of reflecting research activities in climate science, and is adequately summarized in the technical summary". All this rather points in the other direction: the committee said "yes Kyoto", and one single person on it said "no Kyoto", so Bush agreed with Lindzen so he could do what he wanted to do anyway. This is just my impression.

Given the WSJ's poor reputation and the lack of other sources for it, the sentence should go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If the list is correct, then your speculations were incorrect. However, the first two sentences in the Wikipedia-article paragraph do not correctly reflect what Lindzen wrote. He wrote "The NAS panel did not address this question [of a need for Kyoto]", so the Wikipedia article should not say "urging the Bush Administration not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol". And the words "would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming" are positioned to look like a direct quote of the committee's words, when in fact they are Lindzen's words. So, although the Wall Street Journal fits our RS criteria, and although it's okay to quote Lindzen with attribution, removing either or both sentences would slightly improve the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Cato Institute

It looks like Lindzen is no longer with the Cato Institute. Looking at his bio there hes described as a "Former Senior Fellow" and "Richard S. Lindzen was a distinguished senior fellow. " No indication as to when he left though, but nothing published there since 2015. --Salix alba (talk): 11:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Alarmism

"and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism.""

Please explain the difference between this and climate change denialism. Every denialist "criticizes" what he calls "climate alarmism".

Person A calling person B "alarmist" just means that person A considers a specific thing less dangerous than person B does. It is purely relative, it has no objective absolute content. So, "Lindzen criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism"" means that there are people who consider climate change more dangerous than Lindzen, and, wait for it, Lindzen disagrees with them! Duh, astonishing new information which does not at all follow from what is already written above.

Meaningless blather like that has no place in Wikipedia articles. Unless we want Wikipedia to be a propaganda platform for denialism, echoing their clichés. Do we? I do not, and WP:FRINGE doesn't either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is also the matter of the weak (primary) sourcing. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)