Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier's Ties To Big Oil

[RestoreGore]

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494/

By Joshua Holland

A recent Newsweek op-ed by global warming denier Richard Lindzen claims the meteorologist has no industry ties, but his bio is as misleading as his writing. So Newsweek is running an opinion piece about global warming titled: "Why So Gloomy?" The piece is authored by Richard Lindzen, a well-known meteorologist, and his thesis about the potential melt-down of our climate can be boiled down to this: Don't worry, be happy!

At the bottom of the article, is this brief biographical sketch of the author:

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Sounds like he's on the up-and-up, no? After all, the guy's not one of those scientists who denies global warming and then cashes nice checks from a bunch of big energy firms, right? Maybe those wing-nuts are right when they deny that there's a scientific consensus about human activities contributing to global warming. Hmmm. Oh, but wait. That name … Lindzen … sure does sound familiar.

Yes! From that excellent investigative piece in Harper's on the funding behind the climate skepticism "industry" …

In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change… For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics--Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others--who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; 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. His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself -- his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments -- have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!

But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek -- he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal -- appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.

Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years." Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

The report predicts: "increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought."

snip

In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorogist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question. Whether Newsweek's editors were duped by Lindzen's admittedly impressive credentials or not is irrelevant -- this info took me about 18 seconds on Google to unearth. There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio -- it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.

That's common, and really bad for democracy. I, for one, am sick of it. If you are too then tell Newsweek that if they're going to run opinion pieces by industry-funded shills, they need to disclose those shills' financial interests.

His "article"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
~~~~~~
It's time to put the media in its place on this. I'm writing to Newsweek to impart some knowledge to them on this phony. Will you? I hope so, because this kind of BS is what is going to wind up putting this planet in more danger. This is very irresponsible of Newsweek and they are going to know it.

[Joanne98]

1. I love Harpers! k&r

[RestoreGore]

2. My letter to Bucknell University

Richard Lindzen made an appearance at Bucknell University last September to specifically target Al Gore. This was the letter I wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I read yesterday that Dr. Richard Lindzen was appearing at your university on September 5 in regards to global warming. Now, I have nothing against him appearing at your university to discuss global warming and even to dispute it. That is his right. However, I take offense to the fact that this appearance seems to be a deliberate political attempt to specifically target and discredit a good man in former Vice President of the United States Al Gore, whose movie An Inconvenient Truth is now the third highest grossing documentary ever, and whose companion book of the same name is now number one on the NY Times bestseller list.

Mr. Lindzen already wasted no time in trashing Mr. Gore in the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to stifle support of his movie, in my view because he is a paid operative for the oil industry. And now your university is once again giving him the chance to shill for EXXON and all other oil companies that are willfully killing this planet for profit. Is that really the impression you wish to give to young people in whose hands this Earth will be placed?

It is one thing to have a sincere conviction about an issue one way or the other and express that conviction with the intent of addressing it to the entire scientific community. However, if your university thinks for one moment that the purpose behind booking him simply to attack Al Gore specifically for political and economic reasons for his benefactors is not obvious based on the title of his address, you are mistaken.

I personally find it to be beneath any academic standards for any university to condone such a blatant tactic, especially against a man who has done nothing but relay a message that has been corroborated by scientists from the NSA, the IPCC, NASA, and hundreds of scientists from across the world: That climate change is also human induced and that we must join together to reduce our impact upon this world, which is clearly seen if you are an impartial witness to what is occurring on our planet right now. So exactly what is it that Al Gore speaking in tandem with hundreds of climate scientists and organizations from the NSA, IPCC, NASA, and the IPCC specifically not telling us that Mr. Lindzen, a paid shill for oil companies is going to tell us?

I am sure he will not tell you this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-hol-testimony/

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

It surely to me is a shame that this issue is so polarized because of Conservatives who even when evidence is brought before them regarding the responsibility we all have to this planet’s future and what we are doing in contributing to this crisis still feel the need to politicize this crisis and attack people rather than work together to solve it because it is what is buying policy in Washington DC over what is morally and ethically the right course for our planet. Even Evangelical ministers are standing with the science in this movie and in general and breaking away from the political chokehold this issue has had on progress, and working to bring the truth about our moral responsibility to this planet forward.

Therefore, I felt as an environmentalist, as someone who does not believe this issue should be politicized, and as someone who has actually seen the movie, read the book, and can attest to the accuracy of the information in it as many other scientists already have including those whose opinions are located in 928 peer reviewed articles printed in Science magazine, that you as a university are now a spokesman for the factions within this dark political process that place profit over human life and propaganda over truth. I sincerely hope you understand the gravity and responsibility of this action.

[RestoreGore]

14. He is a "Contributing Expert" to George C. Marshall Institute

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."

And Frederick Seitz is on their Board of Directors.

I think that speaks volumes about why he is out here disputing the very science he actually agreed with.

[Turbineguy]

3. OK, I guess the question is

is he being paid by energy interests because of what results his research comes up with or is his research coming up with those results because he is being paid for them?

$2500 a day for a few days in 1991 will not put much food on his table now.

Maybe the global warming issue is not as binary as "It's the Oil Companies' Fault" vs. "It's a natural occuring phemonenon".

Still, to deny he gets any funding from energy companies, or to suggest he never got any funding from them is inaccurate and sloppy.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Excellent post in all its points.

[RestoreGore]

7. The Denial leads me to believe it is the latter

If it were the former why hide it?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Here is the exact quote from Newsweek:

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

No funding, as in no research funding. It's misleading, but not inaccurate.

If you cannot dispute his science, this argument is meaningless innuendo.

[RestoreGore]

13. Then I guess you have no reason to be here

Since you have nothing else to contribute to back up your own statements.

[nam78_two]

21. I am not a climate scientist

and therefore I cannot write out a point by point scientific critique of his work. I do think that people who are trained in a particular area of research know more about it than a lay person who does armchair research.

It is undeniable at this point that Lindzen is in a minority in his field, which is why he is usually described as a contrarian. Given that he is at odds with the majority of scientists in his area of research, and considering how big the oil industry is, I think it is only common-sense to find his ties to the oil industry questionable. This is a very politically charged area of research.

Remember this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
(Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study)

[Buzz Clik]

23. I agree. His position is quite curious given the evidence.

However, there is no denying that he is more than qualified to develop his own opinions and has been consistent in his position for nearly three decades.

My suggestion is that we forever abandon this fruitless approach of trying to impugn those who've had associations with industry and stay focused on the science.

[Reterr]

24. Exactly right

Especially given that a lot of what Lindzen does is use of arguments looking at what he claims are "inconsistencies" in climate sciences. His arguments are routinely torn into by other scientists over at Real Climate.
This is a rather fuzzy area of science where personal bias can very easily be influenced by a bias of this sort.

http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/06/lindzen-and-science-illiteracy.html

[Buzz Clik]

28. Now, you're starting to make some solid progress.

The key is NOT Lindzen's professional associations, it is his science. Countering his arguments cannot be accomplished by pointing at essentially minute, ancient consulting agreements, but by blasting him for bad science.

Great post.

[RestoreGore]

30. It appears his "science" is based on his associations

And unless you prove otherwise, you are blowing hot air here.

[Buzz Clik]

33. I already proved my point. And you? Nothing but contempt.

I have not accused him of lying, as you did.
I have not accused him of conducting biased science, as you did.
I have not accused him of being a corporate shill, as you did.

And now you directly accuse him of basing his science on money given to him, but you offer no proof.

I demonstrated my point quite clearly in a post on this thread. You have demonstrated nothing.

Please -- either demonstrate CLEARLY that his science is flawed, or get off of this. Your accusations are without foundation.

[RestoreGore]

45. I can DAMN WELL question HIS CREDENTIALS

So you need to just deal with that as you are now going to be ignored as you are doing nothing here but spinning your wheels and wasting my time.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Ok. So he received some money from oil companies.

Did that impact his science? Is his science flawed? You disagree with his conclusions, but can you find fault with the processes he used? His means of discovery? His basic approach to the scientific method?

I have a question for you concerning Lindzen and his paid trip to testify before Congress in 1991. Are all witnesses expected to pay their own way, or is their trip financed by interested parties? When Lindzen testified, did he misrepresent known facts as a result of having his trip financed by Western Fuels?

And this quote is absolutely ridiculous:

There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio -- it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.

I've heard these arguments time and again, and there is no evidence at all that this kind of consulting relationship with an industry constitutes a conflict of interest or has any influence of any kind on his opinions. More likely, his opinions had already been formed, and the energy industry was interested in helping him give exposure to those opinions.

Until someone demonstrates that Lindzen's science has been compromised, the charges are pure and unadulterated bullshit.

[RestoreGore]

6. Look up Leipzig Declaration

and perhaps do a little research on your own before you call something BS. Demonstrate your own point. I think Lindzen is part of a group sent out to keep speculation going as to whether there is a problem to keep the focus off of solutions. And that is wrong.

[Buzz Clik]

8. I am very aware of all these things.

I have researched global climate change for years.

Leipzig was a joke. Seitz is a fraud, and Patrick Michaels lies when it's convenient.

So, there you go.

Now, can we get back on topic? I will not charge down some bizarre tangent.

[RestoreGore]

9. That wasn't a tangent.

Lindzen was a signatory to the Leipzig Declaration. You should have known that then which was my point in mentioning it.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Do you dispute his science? Can you prove that his science is flawed?

If you cannot, you are bringing NOTHING to this conversation because being funded by industry does not mean he has been biased by them.

Period.

This is the one and only point to be debated here. Absolutely nothing else is relevant.

Can you dispute his science or not?

[RestoreGore]

12. You made the accusation

Prove it is.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Prove it is what? This is the silliest argument I've ever seen, here or anywhere else.

Seriously, I've seen some amazingly ignorant arguments against global warming, but your "Oh, yeah? Sez you!" really takes the prize.

I am NOT the one who is claiming that he is a bogus scientist, and I don't have to prove that his is credible. Look at his title. Check out the credentials of the "little school" who employs him. Until you provide just a shred of evidence to the contrary, it is logical to assume that this man is one of the most brilliant in his profession.

[RestoreGore]

29. I obviously hit a nerve with you with this thread

Why should a thread where Richard Lindzen's credibility is questioned ruffle your feathers so much if it so easy to prove? There is nothing silly about this. He writes an article where he deliberately leaves out his ties to oil companies and think tanks that are supported by them as well as his other associations (such as the Leipzig Declaration, which tells me right there that his credibility is questionable) leaving his credibility in question. You then claim he is credible and is not taking money from or being influenced by oil companies... I then asked you to prove it, but you can't though, can you? I say, either put up or shut up. Deniers sure know how to dish it out then they better be able to take it. Either you prove he has never received money from an industry that is now behind a massive disinformation campaign regarding this climate crisis or give it up.

[Buzz Clik]

34. You've demonstrated nothing. All you do is repeat the same accusations endlessly.

Lindzen's science is beyond question. His opinions about global warming, on the other hand, are highly debatable. However, your accusations, and those you reprinted in your OP, are totally irresponsible.

[RestoreGore]

His "science" is questionable based on his associations

Which you have yet to disprove.

[Buzz Clik]

40. I acknowledge his associations. I don't acknowledge any bias in his science.

And, despite your infinite loop of slandering him, you have yet to put forward the tiniest bit of evidence that his scientific endeavors demonstrate any bias at all. And, you cannot.

[RestoreGore]

38. His "science" is questionable based on his associations

Which you have yet to disprove.

[RestoreGore]

39. His "science" is questionable based on his associations

Which you have yet to disprove.

[NashVegas]

15. Isn't That Really The Point of the OP?

That Newsweek hid factors that might detract from Lindzen's credibility?

[RestoreGore]

16. Thanks, At least someone gets it

And anything that is deliberately done to detract from the truth of someone's background usually means there is a lack of credibility in my book. The onus is then not on me to prove anything one way or the other. The onus is then on those who claim he is credible to prove it so.

[Buzz Clik]

22. We all get it.

You're trying to smear a noted scientist -- who just happens to disagree with your hero -- because he has had an association with the energy industry. The illogic and total lack of any supporting evidence is both stunning and laughable.

1. Lindzen has nearly 200 peer reviewed, scientific journal articles. If he were a corporate whore, don't you think that he secret would have come out in that process?

2. Lindzen has received considerable funding from the National Science Foundation, the Cadillac of government research support. NSF proposals are heavily scrutinized and subject to brutal review. The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with Lindzen's opinions about global warming; these same scientists review his proposals to NSF. If his science was bad and biased by his associations with the energy industry, do you think he would receive a single cent of NSF funding? He is being critiqued by people who disagree with his conclusions but have no problem with his science. Do you honestly think you know more than they do?

This thread is pure bullshit.

[RestoreGore]

25. He is LYING about his credentials

That is the BS.

[Buzz Clik]

27. No, Newsweek printed it.

And, in reality, they printed the truth. "Funding" among scientists refers to research funding, not speaking or consulting fees. For all we know, he made full disclosure to Newsweek who then printed that misleading statement.

And, receiving some travel and consulting fees is hardly a part of his "credentials". His credentials include his position at MIT, his publication record, his endowed chair, etc.

But, of course, none of this even touches on your motivation for posting this, now does it.

[RestoreGore]

32. And what is your real motivation for harrassing me in this thread?

Let's go, prove he is not writing these articles in the service of his benefactors.

[Buzz Clik]

35. I make it a point to correct flaws, biases, and ignorance.

I've hit all three with you.

[RestoreGore]

37. You've done nothing but waste bandwidth here n/t

[Buzz Clik]

41. On the contrary, I've made my point. And that is very important.

[Buzz Clik]

43. And I'll be back for your next episode of bullshit.

The last word is yours.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Newsweek made an accurate but misleading statement.

That reflects badly on Newsweek, not Lindzen.

And the point of the article is summed up toward the end when it claims that he has a serious conflict of interest. I strongly disagree.

[RestoreGore]

26. You strongly disagree?

Then prove he isn't an oil company shill... but you can't, can you? You just come here to badmouth me for pointing out that he is obviously lying about being supported by think tanks and frauds who are trying to stifle solutions to climate change because it puts a dent in their balance sheets.

[leftchick]

48. He has a pattern of being a pundit for Energy Interests

and if you can't see that you are blind...

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen was a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive, and he has testified multiple times before Congress.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; 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." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

KEY QUOTES

11 June, 2001
"The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater."
Source: "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," WSJ 6/11/01

23 February, 2004
"We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapour, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not well correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide."
Source: "Canadian Reactions To Sir David King," Hill Times Ottawa 2/23/04

14 February, 2007
"To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."
Source: San Diego Union Tribune 2007

31 January, 2007
"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
Source: CNN transcript - Larry King Live 1/31/07

[autorank]

53. Here's something for you Private Sector 101

From the OP:"Lindzen, for his part,

charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; 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.

His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself -- his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments -- have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!"

Just because they're destroying the world doesn't mean the oil interests are stupid.

They don't pay consultants $2500 a day who say that their products are destroying the world. You see if they do, then they're fools and they are not that (at least not in business terms).

That's how the private sector works, the oil companies and OPEC pay for a service. When the service involves commenting on global warming, they don't pay you unless you agree with them. Well, the old profit motive plus a little whoring (even academics do it;) equals fee for service.

Buzz Chick, find me ONE single scientist who is paid to comment on global warming who agrees that it's man made and due largely to fossil fuels, e.g., the oil companies. You can't and if you did, I can assure you that they didn't employ that scientist again to comment on global warming.

Now, they probably pay all sorts of scientists who agree that global warming is real. They'd have to. 90-95% of scientists agree, the other 5% are fools or crooks. But they're paying them for some other service, not to comment on global warming. Please, givfe us a break.

I ran a thread some time ago on the impact of global warming and had someone show up who had endless questions about the peer reviewed sources I cited. It was really amazing. you bring the sources and you're nickled and dimed.

Get real, it's real. When the sea level goes up one (1) meter and tens of millions are fleeling the low lands of Bangladesh, and south Florida is no more, I hope you remember your comments today.

CHECK THIS OUT - FLORIDA AND GLOBAL WARMING GENERATED SEA LEVEL RISE.

And check out these temperatures...hope the skeptics & contrarians are getting ready to do nothing to prevent this because "they're always two sides to an issue" - one of the weakest arguments ever!!!

[nam78_two]

19. K&R.nt

[Uncle Joe]

20. Thanks for the thread RestoreGore

Kicked and recommended

[Cha]

31. BAD newsweek! Just when I thought they

were coming out of there newsweak era.

[RestoreGore]

36. Lindzen, Fred S. Singer, and Sun Myung Moon?

http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/envcrisis/greenhouse/scientists.html

Hmm, worth looking into. It would appear that Lindzen is just one of a few scientists enlisted to continue to shed doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change for their own interests. I have yet to see anything to the contrary.

[nam78_two]

42. That is an interesting factoid about Moon

I knew that SEPP was a industry funded think tank, but didn't know it was a Moonie one. Interesting link-thanks for posting.

I always like to follow the money trail on these things. As an aside I believe Fred Singer had many ties to the tobacco industry back when he was disputing the science on tobacco.

[RestoreGore]

47. yes, tobacco-global warming link

Disputing the facts that kill people just to make a profit. People like Singer make me sick.

[Reterr]

50. Thats a great link

You should make that a separate post.

[RestoreGore]

55. Thanks, I just might do that. n/t

[RestoreGore]

44. Richard Lindzen Agreed With Glenn Beck

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130003

How much is he paid to deliberately dispute a crisis that is in scientific consensus? And please, GLENN BECK? He along with Fred S. Singer (who BTW, was also involved with the tobacco industry), Fred Seitz, Patrick Michaels, and Balling are all in the same boat as part of a disinformation campaign regarding global climate change in league with the energy industry interests and oil companies that wish to keep skepticism on this ripe in order to stifle the solutions.

[ComerPerro]

46. There is big money to be made in denying global warming and evolution

[RestoreGore]

49. All you need to know about Lindzen's flawed science

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

[PinkyisBlue]

51. Jeff Jacoby, a Repug tool, wrote a column in today's Boston Globe about Lindzen.

He used Lindzen's MIT credentials and lack of funding by energy companies (as stated in Newsweek) to strengthen his argument that global warming is a hoax. I'll e-mail Jacoby (at [e-mail])to set him straight.

[Jcrowley]

52. Kick and Rec n/t

[nam78_two]

54. ...

:kick: