Re: More Gore

On Jun 4, 8:32 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

He hasn't supervised a Ph.D. student since 2003

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/students2.pdf

Before then his students were submitting their theses at a rate of
about one a year.

He does still seem to be publishing, albeit not in peer-reviewed
journals, and his publication rate has slowed down a lot in recent
years. Searching for Richard S Lindzen on Google Scholar pulls out
some 359 items, some of them heavily cited - the top scorers have 337,
225 and 201 citations respectively.

There are only 59 "recent articles" and they are cited by many fewer
people - presumably he hasn't got as much time to do research these
days, because he's spending a lot of hs time providing a service to
the oil industry. If he is spendi g less time on his research, this
might expalin why the research he does publish seems to be less
interesting to his colleagues than it used to be.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

suggests he is now spending a lot of his time telling stories that
suit the oil industry, and earning healthy consulting fees in the
process.

Commentators claim that he probably isn't disagreeing with the global
warming consensus just to make money - he seems to find it
psychologically necessary to disagree with his colleagues, and was
doing it long before he could make money out of it.

It may be less immoral to reject the best scientific explanation
because you want to be the centre of attention, rather than because
you want to collect a lot of consulting fees from Exxon Mobil and the
like, but it does seem that the Richard S Lindzen is rejecting
anthropogenic global warming for reasons that don't have much to do
with the scientific evidence.

So, as usual all you can offer are ad hominems

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe you are referring to argumentum ad hominem as defined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

This is a weak debating technique if it is either irrelevant or
untrue. However, if it's both true and relevant to the debate, it is
morally, ethically, and forensically sound.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More Gore
    ... Searching for Richard S Lindzen on Google Scholar pulls out ... doing it long before he could make money out of it. ... you want to collect a lot of consulting fees from Exxon Mobil and the ... anthropogenic global warming for reasons that don't have much to do ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: More Gore
    ... Searching for Richard S Lindzen on Google Scholar pulls out ... doing it long before he could make money out of it. ... anthropogenic global warming for reasons that don't have much to do ... as usual all you can offer are ad hominems ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: More Gore
    ... Searching for Richard S Lindzen on Google Scholar pulls out ... doing it long before he could make money out of it. ... anthropogenic global warming for reasons that don't have much to do ... yes it is and your claims are plain untrue. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: More Gore
    ... Searching for Richard S Lindzen on Google Scholar pulls out ... interesting to his colleagues than it used to be. ... anthropogenic global warming for reasons that don't have much to do ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Medicare D
    ... >I am rich beyond my wildest dreams and do realize it and thank God ... Money and material things are not all that important to us. ... >Richard, just exactly how do you know this. ... you won't change your opinion. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
Loading