# Interesting C&D article on Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [September 21, 2006, 8:17am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/interesting-c-d-article-on-global-warming/17798 "2006-09-21T08:17:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 9
**Author:** ![66impalass](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/66impalass/32/7429_2.png) [@66impalass](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/66impalass)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/interesting-c-d-article-on-global-warming/17798/9 "2006-10-12T13:56:39Z")
> [@JayS](#): > > Try reading the whole thing, and maybe understanding it next time. Make sure to read the additional articles that are linked, but be warned there are some big words and science in those. > > :tup: for doing exactly what most global warmers do… pick one or two sentences from an article, ignore the rest that doesn’t help your point, and use those few sentences as your entire arguement. > > It’s not that it’s something we can control and therefore should. It’s that it’s something we can control, but makes up such a minor percentage of the actual greenhouse effect that controlling it or not makes no difference. > > I watched Brokaw’s, I will never watch anything by Al Gore. Brokaws was the same flawed science. Not fact, just proof through repetition. Repeat the same stats the leave out the water vapor contribution, and hope eventually it becomes fact. :tup: try doign some research about who you are posting articles by, like some one in a different field of climantology > **Richard Siegmund Lindzen** (born [February 8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_8), [1940](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940)) is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at [MIT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT) renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. > > He is a member of the [National Academy of Sciences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences) and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the [Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annapolis_Center_for_Science-Based_Public_Policy&action=edit).[[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen#_note-0) He previously held positions at the [University of Chicago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago) and [Harvard University](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University). > > He was a lead author of Chapter 7 of the [IPCC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC)’s [Third Assessment Report](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Assessment_Report) of 2001.[[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen#_note-1) and some one, that himself has posted incorrect work > In September 2003 Lindzen wrote an open letter to the mayor of [Newton, Massachusetts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%2C_Massachusetts) (Lindzen’s home),[[16]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen#_note-14) his views on global warming and the [Kyoto Accord](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Accord). He says _“… [T]he impact of_ CO2 _on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although_ CO2 _has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in_ CO2 _and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of_ CO2_, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so – about 1 degree_ F _– is due to added greenhouse gases-- a very implausible assumption).”._ when in reality > However the statement _the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict_ is not correct.[[17]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen#_note-15) See [climate model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model) for more information. and if you read articles he has written, not just select ones which he has later changed opinion about, he says we are going about this the wrong way. He has other theorys about how we should be handling the limitation of CO2 and CO, which again that article you posted did not mention any effects of. The fact that CH4 has increased about 150% over pre industrial age levels, scares me, and the fact that carbon monoxide multiplies its effects of CH4. than you get into the whole situation of who he actually works for > According to a former [Boston Globe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Globe) reporter and author, [Ross Gelbspan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gelbspan), Lindzen has accepted money from oil and coals interests for consulting services, expert testimony, and speech writing. In a 1995 article in [Harper’s Magazine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper%27s_Magazine), Gelbsan asserted that Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by [OPEC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC).”[[24]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen#_note-21) so please stop being a blind conservative and open your eyes, go to a wast to energy plant and see how much NOx SOx and COx are scrubbed out by the SDA’s, see what is used to control the release of all of these gases. See the levels of the gases would be released with out these controls. And the fact that there is an expotential increase in these gasses, not linear is another main point that people miss. I write operation reports for about 5 Waste to Energy plants, I deal with emessions caps of another two plants for a living. You are only reading a very biased report, and not actually doing anythign to educate yourself with the truth. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/interesting-c-d-article-on-global-warming/17798)._