Originally Posted by aviate1138
Aviate 1138
One is enough when it is Richard Lindzen.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
I regard Prof. Lindzen the way Winston Churchill regarded Prof. R V Jones during WW2, a brilliant scientist who, frankly, saved the British during the 1939-45 war, not just the 1941-45 bit, by analyzing scientific facts, applying Occam's Razor to find solutions and not blindly following the herd.
Anyway as you say, we should get back to the magnificent A380 Airbus....
Aviate 1138
Well hey, the Airbus is surely important and interesting, but so is global warming. Possibly moreso.
I do not think, of course, that scientific conclusions are to be settled by voting. One may be right and many may be wrong. That said, it is unclear to me how the view of a single scientist ("One is enough") whose conclusions are in line with yours overpowers the conclusions of the vast majority. Of actual scientists that is, I am not regarding journalists, talk-show comics, folks with axes to grind, corporations and their flackies and flunkies, and the like.
I am not a scientist. I am susceptible to prejudice and false points of view, as are scientists. I hope to maintain an open mind and stay subject to correction, always. I think debate and dialogue (and diplomacy and negotiation, but that's spilling over into another arena) are always preferable to dogmatism and bullheadedness. Debate and dialogue have their place in scientific controversy. I do not hope to convince you of my viewpoint or anything you do not want to listen to. I do recognize that the fuss over anthropogenic global warming may be mistaken.
However I do not believe it is mistaken. All that I see persuades me that the real science strongly favors anthropogenic factors as a major contributor to the (unargued by you as far as I know) current warming trend.
The views of a single scientist in opposition to many of equal expertise cannot persuade me, but again I maintain an open mind. Fees of $2500 per day from oil companies (as alleged elsewhere in the thread) for favorable testimony, for me throw into doubt the validity of that single scientist's conclusions. Not negate, but throw into doubt. I do not mean to suggest that he is saying what he is being paid to say; rather that his conclusions may be slanted in a certain direction. As are mine on occasion--if I have a client with a certain need, I will naturally take their side within bounds of ethics and honesty. So does any lawyer. So will you, I presume.
I think this issue is bigger than the A380. I hope you are not bored with my essay.
Can you name any others with actual scientific credentials and similar stature, who discount anthropogenic contributions to global warming?