“Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves.

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.[1] He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University.

Lindzen is identified as a contributer to Chapter 4 of the “IPCC Second Assessment”, “Climate Change 1995″. [2].

He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”[3]”

Well, Exxon owes me a shitload of back pay then. I may need to file suit against them, once my suits against Haliburton and The Elders of Zion are resolved.

I’m certainly not – but what I do know that every single scientific organiziation on the planet accepts it as fact – and those who don’t tend to be getting rather hefty pay-checks from Exxon.

It simply is a fact. And you will accept it very soon, as we all will.

I’d rather not believe it, too – doesn’t sound like a whole lotta fun.

It’d be so much easier to believe that things last forever perfectly and that there are no concequences to our actions – as smoker I know the game well.

But at some stage we all grow up and learn the hard way.

It’s just a shame that’s our sons and daughters are the one’s who get stuck with the concequences of our ignorance…

justa:

Is that why Time magazine ran a scare story in 1974 about the “coming Ice Age” that “meteorologists worldwide” forecast in the next decade, using much the same language as you are using now?

Are you, by the way, an expert in climatology? There are a great many who dispute the *theory* of anthropocentric global warming. Yes, the earth is getting warmer…but nobody is really certain why—and it was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now.

As for the commentor’s “permission,” he can put THAT where the sun don’t shine. More to the point – some ACTUAL language from the ACTUAL congressional resolution, in which it seems the Congress thought there was at least one more condition under which Congress authorized force:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Hmm … Gee, it seems to me that Congress authorized force because of Saddam’s “direct and flagrant” violations – at least that’s what it says in the congressional record.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ (Public Law 105-235) …

Oops, oh my goodness, here’s still ANOTHER reason that Congress authorized force, namely “material and unacceptable breach of its[Iraq’s] international obligations.” Gee, that’s FOUR reasons, not merely the TWO cited by the commentor. I could go on quoting from the record(which the commentor evidently did not read all the way through) which has still other reasons to topple Saddam but I think my point is made.

We did not find any significant off-the-shelf chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq …

Me, I think finding a nuclear material centrifuge buried in a backyard is “significant.” I’m just funny that way. But I get the idea the commentor wouldn’t admit to Saddam’s guilt no matter what the evidence. Saddam was no threat, would never be a threat and that’s that. He’s made up his mind and a little evidence is not going to change THAT.
 

Natural law does not bend to popular vote.

Feel free to prove me wrong, I’d love to see the Laws of Thermodynamics repealed. Damn things are positively fascist.