I wrote back:<br><br>Sallie Baliunas works for
fossil fuel and she is one of those I distrust the
moment she opens her mouth or types a word. Lindzen is
another case. (I should mention I do this as a hobby and
am not paid by anyone or institution for my views).
Perhaps you can defend fellow MIT's Lindzen's iris paper
for me. <br><br>What is it about the data set in
Lindzen's iris paper would cause west moving winds to
create more cirrus clouds and east, less? Lindzen's
paper on iris is available at
> 082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the
link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full
article. Why would it be significant that the equatorial
current there is over deep waters, lacks methanogen
activity, and studied during La Nina conditions? And given,
as I predicted this spring the rest of the tropics
behaves differently relativelt to Ci clouds, what further
does this say about what could be causing the 'iris'?
Why did his paper ignore direction of sustained wind
and current that is the obvious driving force behind
the relationship he finds. <br><br>Note that <a
>">Bruce A. Wielicki of the NASA Langley Research Center
believes that the images were not representative of the
entire tropics. Using data from a different satellite,
Wielicki and his group conclude, in a paper to appear in
the Journal of Climate, that, on balance, warmer
tropical clouds would have a slight heating, not a
cooling, effect. </a><br><br>Can you explain the
differences between Wielicki's view and your fellow there at
MIT. If I am really good at selecting and
misrepresenting data like he did in his 'iris' paper, can I too
have the ear of the President? Weekly meetings,
perhaps? Get paid top bucks from oil interests? Or do I
have to go to MIT first? Or perhaps just be good at
saying what Bush wants me to say? Dang, I guess I
wouldn't qualify on all three items. But you, hey, you're
an MIT boy. Gives you all sorts of credibility.
<br><br>Ziiiiiiip. Flew right over my head, yes sir, it did. MIT
means you are GOD and your word be truth.
Bllllllllaaaaaaaah. <br><br>Yes, sir, nothing like a little data
selection and misrepresentation to make your day. <br><br>I
forgot about Lindzen's talents as used right before the
election (you know, that contest decided by a 100 votes)
to testify in front of Congress about his 'iris'.
Wow. No that wasn't politically motivated 'science',
eh? <br><br><br>Lindzen was under oath, wasn't he?
<br><br>Think about it. When Clinton lied in a depo about a
personal and not relevant sexual encounter in a
politically motivated malicious and meritless civil case--he
gets impeached. But when a 'respected' MIT Professor
lies--he becomes a Maverick and gets to teach the
President about climate and makes big money.