Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but I found the makeup of the panel quite interesting. The pro side included Michael Crichton, who writes fun novels, but is a complete hack when it comes to real science. It also includes Philip Stott who has never published a single academic paper in this area and Richard Lindzen from MIT who is the best-qualified of the three, but has a history of being a consultant for the oil industry. The three folks on the other side have much stronger scientific credentials.
|
Now you're not being entirely honest or fair. Lindzen's ties to the oil industry were relatively minor and date back IIRC to the early 1990s. Just because a guy once had contacts doesn't make him forever tainted. You're unfairly doing what those who want to attack him, do, dismiss him out of hand without accurately describing his credentials or even accurately describing his credentials.
If I were a lawyer presenting him before a jury, he would be persuasive, and your dismissal of him would go over like a lead balloon. I'm not denying your dismissal of the other two.