The Lindzen focus is a distraction, to my mind. Anyone thinking that the erosion of Lindzen’s credibility will somehow build societal enthusiasm for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is probably overly optimistic.Spot on.
The New York Times has an article today ostensibly about clouds but which is really an extended hit piece on Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, member of the US National Academy of Sciences and well known climate skeptic.
Below I have excerpted a laundry list of phrases in the article used to describe Lindzen:
- Leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day
- Has drawn withering criticism
- Errors in his papers
- Proof is lacking
- Obliged [politicians] by assuring them that they are running no risks by refusing to enact emissions limits
- Contrarian scientist
- Gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction
- Wrong science
- [Not] intellectually honest at all
- Contrarian scientist
- Methods he had used to analyze data were flawed
- His theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts
- Most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited
- He routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers
- Dr. Lindzen offers little hint of how thin the published science supporting his position is
- He makes what many colleagues see as an unwarranted leap of logic
- Deeply unprofessional and irresponsible
Whatever one thinks about the climate change debate or Richard Lindzen, is it a good idea for the New York Times to engage in an over-the-top attack on a member of the National Academy of Sciences? Journalists, what do you think?