Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 2

Academic writings vs. popular writings

Lindzen is best known to the public for his skepticism about anthropogenic global warming as reflected in Wall Street Journal Op-Eds, etc. Is this refelected in his academic research at all? I.e. do any of his academic papers or preprints make a case in this direction (like say McKitrick)? Crust 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not much... at least not that I can think of. He had the "iris hypothesis" I suppose... Chou MD, Lindzen RS Comments on "Examination of the decadal tropical mean ERBS nonscanner radiation data for the iris hypothesis" JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 18 (12): 2123-2127 JUN 15 2005 is him complaining that people don't believe it... ; Zurita-Gotor P, Lindzen RS Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part I: A barotropic analog JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES 61 (13): 1469-1482 JUL 2004 is more typical; Lindzen RS, Giannitsis C Reconciling observations of global temperature change GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 29 (12): Art. No. 1583 JUN 15 2002 is him embarsassing himself by failing to realise that the upper air series were wrong in 2002: It is suggested that the much publicized discrepancy between observed surface global mean temperature and global mean atmospheric temperature from 1979 to the present may be due to.... I guess that counts as being skeptical, if you know what you're looking for William M. Connolley 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. So it sounds like his public skepticism is more or less independent of his own research (unlike say McKitrick). Crust 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think William is wrong here. He's (Lindzen) done stuff on volcanoes claiming to show that climate sensitivity is very low (but this was with an extremely simple model: more complex ones with realistic sensitivities agree closely with the obs). There was also a paper claiming that the ocean warming didn't indicate much if any support for existing models. IIRC, he has a web page with all his papers where these can easily be found.Jdannan 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You calling me wrong, punk? OK, maybe I am. In fact I wrote the "not much" before looking up the papers, and was surprised by how many of them were almost overtly skeptical. I didn't see the volcanoes one, though - is that from a way back? William M. Connolley 07:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lindzen and Giannitsis 1998 (184 on this page: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html) may be the most recent. He may have given up on this line of argument once it became clear that more sophisticated models can reproduce realistic volcanic cooling with sensitivity of 2-4C or thereabouts (his simple model needs S<1 or something).Jdannan 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting that he is or was a skeptic about volcanic cooling (or at least proposed a model in which there is a little volcanic cooling). In fairness to WMC, I meant skepticism about anthropogenic global warming; presumably skepticism about volcanic cooling is pretty much unrelated. Crust 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are misundserstanding. He is using the cooling to estimate climate sensitivity William M. Connolley 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. (His simple model was using volcanoes to estimate sensitivity to forcings in general not just sensitivity to volcanoes.) Crust 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reword this unclear part or remove this original analysis (I don't know which it is)

"this does not qualify their statement about greenhouse gases causing warming as Lindzen implies." -- a statement defended (written?) by William M. Connolley

"We are quite confident ... that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth" -- Lindzen, WSJ, 2001.

love, raiph 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we really want his letter to his hometown mayor?

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, guys.

Nominate this section for expedited removal. Comments?

Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed section, Pete Tillman 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be included? (restoring during discussion) --Lee Vonce 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as absurd to have a section in an encyclopedia article quoting a letter to this fellow's mayor. I suppose it's to illustrate his point, but isn't there something he's published that would serve? Cheers, Pete Tillman 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the letter itself was published. --Lee Vonce 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scientific Community is Not Impartial

What I believe Lindzen has been saying, which I believe to be true in science, industry, academia, and politics, is that the ability to be published, to be tenured, to be promoted and to receive funding is a function of being 'politically correct'. As he states, the reason there is not more research, more papers, more recognized authorities that may provide different insights into climate change is that they can't get funded, published, or promoted.

The academic community has traditionally been one of the most intolerant. Lindzen escapes only because he was tenured and respected before global warming, and in a tenured chair by then. More recent examples include the Columbia protest to the 'Minuteman' illegal immigration prevention group and the general response to the latest book on the Middle East by for US President Jimmy Carter.

I would like to see this article enhanced with a more comprehensive piece on his overall research and contribution throughout his career.

This is his biography on the MIT site:

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.

He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other.

He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere.

He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases.

Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

I broke it into paragraphs for easier reading. —

The preceding comment was added by DavidNJ (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with everything you said. I'm not sure we can include material taken directly from another website but I would also like to see some more discussion about his career. It seems too easy for the AGW partisans to dismiss Lindzen because he says things they don't want to hear. --Lee Vonce 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE PROBLEMS.

THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE PROBLEMS. This article is a description of somebody's idea. If the article is truthly descriptive of the person's idea. It is neutral, no matter what that person say. Even if that person's word is not neutral, it can be neutral that if the article records every words that the person has said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnwk (talk • contribs) 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC). — Dnwk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SkipSmith 00:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Funding claims

Is there any concrete proof that Lindzen charges the amounts or has received money from the sources claimed on this article? I've tried to search the Harpers monthly website to no avail.

I think the claims from The Heat Is On website and author are not reputable sources given they have a vendetta against him because he doesn't agree with their views.

Some concrete proof from reputable media sources who don't have an axe to grind against the guy wouldn't go amiss here. Not wild accusations either, proof, i.e, receipts or genuine copies from the sources' account records proving they made payments to Professor Lindzen. --Dean1970 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have to go to the paper record if you dispute whether Harpers actually published the article; otherwise it's a reputable source.Brian A Schmidt 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Still can't find anything proving these claims. Maybe from a neutral point of view (the wording of $2,500.oo a day consultancy fee pro-rata 365 days a year = 900k a year) it just struck me as a clever way of saying he is paid hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars a year by utility corporations, whereas in truth, he has only been hired 2-5 a year to consult!

If the media source is so reputable (thorough journalism) as to research the dollar amounts to a tee and cent, why not include how many times a year he consulted for these companies? One reason could be that he didn't consult for them too many times a year - so saying he charged "x" amount a day sounds better? --Dean1970 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio / former supporter / TGGWS

I remvoed the PR section as copyvio.

Zeeboid appears to think that L is a former supporter of GW [1], apparently on the naive grounds that he once contributed to an IPCC report. But he was a skeptic then - only the septics think you have to be a True Believer to contribute.

I don't find any source for the claim that L was highly critical of the IPCC methods in TGGWS. If you have a quote, please provide it William M. Connolley 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that not all those who contribute to the IPCC Reports are Global Warming believers, because from what I understand from reading about the IPCC Reports, is that there is concesus. He contributed to the concesus opinion with his controbution to the IPCC report, as according to the experts, there is no diffrence between those who are on the panels and their individual opinion. The IPCC is even listed under Scientific opinion on climate change, which Lindzen has contributed to.

Have you watched TGGWS? its clear in the film. The refrence is going back, because it is clearly listed in the movie. As you have stated in the past, William, just because its not available on the internet, doesn't mean its not a reputable source.--Zeeboid 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added refrences to the sections you had issue with. You should have no problem with them now.--Zeeboid 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed claiming that not all those who contribute to the IPCC Reports are Global Warming believers - those who contribute and explicitly state otherwise obviously don't agree. L contributed to, and criticised, the '95 report. He has not changed his position. L has been a skeptic since long before '95.

The quote you added from L isn't a crit of IPCC or its processes William M. Connolley 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Watch the video for the full context.--Zeeboid 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - no way is it reasonable for people to have to trawl through the full thing. As your quote goes, it isn't nearly good enough. It isn't even clear *who* he is criticising: in And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to... who is "they"? This doesn't fall under "highly critical of the methods used by the IPCC" William M. Connolley 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the authoritative work and replaced with BS?

The bio on Lindzen was used with permission, and is correct and impartial. The comments on the WSJ article and sensorship of his views was an original review.

If you have something meaningful to add, do so. If you want to remove relevant information on an MIT professor's published research because it doesn't meet your political agenda, you should consider whether you are a scientist or a politician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidNJ (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm - what are you talking about? If its the thing about him saying that people are being forced out of the climate science field - then its not removed.. its in the intro to the article. The stub that i removed was redundant - and from an Op-ed by Tom Harris. --Kim D. Petersen 01:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Connolley's Edits

I am assuming that you have not watched TGGWS video. Within the first 6mn, you can hear the quote that you are Reverting for your self, but I will provide the section in context for you.

John Christy

This claim that the PICC is the world's top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists.

Richard Lindzen

"And until the number up to 2500, they have to start taking reviewers, and government people, and so on. Anyone that ever came close to them and none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree."

John Christy

Those people who are specialists, but don't agree with the polemic and resign, there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this "2500 of the world's top scientists"

Richard Lindzen

People have decided, you have to convince other people, that because no scientist disagrees, you shouldn't disagree either; but whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda.--Zeeboid 03:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotes above have nothing to do with the methods used by the IPCC. If L was criticised their data gathering; or the method of synthesis; that would be different. And... Reiter isn't prominent; and "former IPCC scientist" doesn't mean anything William M. Connolley 08:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant to the global warming controversy, because the #1 argument used by Kyoto Protocol supporters is that 'the science' of the matter is supported by the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists; and they say or hint that the United Nations climate panel (IPCC) has polled them all - or otherwise somehow represents a "consensus" of them.

It cost me considerable effort to get Wikipedians to agree to change the title of List of scientists opposing global warming consensus so it refers only to a "mainstream ... assessment". I was accused of "violating my probation" for this. Do you have any idea how this reflects on science as an enterprise? People are watching Wikipedia and commenting on it in public now.

I suggest we continue to move in the direction of objectivity (or at least neutrality) on controversial issues such as the Anthropogenic global warming theory and stop using redirects and article titles to hide the amount of disagreement that exists in the scientific community. --Uncle Ed 11:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE. As for "objectivity", you have a long record of pushing your scientifically indefensible POV on articles related to global warming, creationism, and the like as shown by arbcom decisions to which you have been subject. As for article redirects and the like, you have engaged in such behavior many times. Bottom line is that you have no standing to lecture others on these matters. Raymond Arritt 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heartland article.

The text:

Lindzen asserts that it is misleading for alarmists to claim a scientific consensus exists regarding global warming, adding "to pretend that this is settled is bizarre."

Is not correct according to the transcript[2] - and i've cut it for reasons in WP:BLP and WP:ATT. Heartland is apparently projecting their own view onto Lindzen's (which he may share (and probably does) - but its not verifyable). --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats speculation, how do you know for a fact that Lindzen didn't say what he said to someone who works for the Heartland Inst, remember, I'm just quoting what a website (not transcript) claims he said and Lindzen hasn't disputed it. --Dean1970 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea - but the Heartland article isn't describing an interview with Lindzen - they are describing the debate - and i've pointed you to the transcript. Which doesn't support Heartlands claims. Personally i don't think that the text is far from Lindzen's personal opinion - but that doesn't matter here. Its not Verifiable. (in fact it can be verified to be wrong). --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Page 55 of 79 in your linked transcript: "RICHARD S. LINDZEN: And, you know, to pretend this is settled, is bizarre." What are you disputing? This should be added back. Oren0 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 - context please. Note the context in which Lindzen states this. (hint: he is stating this about water-vapor and our knowledge about this - not about consensus). --Kim D. Petersen 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Senate(?) hearing

Didn't Lindzen once lie to the Senate as regards him receiving funding (as a consultant) that jeopardized his neutrality on climate change issues? See http://dieoff.org/page82.htm. Dysmorodrepanis 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Richard and funding

A recent edit stated that Richard denied those claims, but the closest I've come to finding is that he states that he does not currently receive money from big oil.[3] Not the same thing as denying he ever received money from them. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in a Newsweek article that isn't avilable online.99.244.181.114 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be online, but they do need to be cited. What would be best here would be a cite to the given edition of Newsweek and a quote with a direct denial (as noted above, the exact words are much better than a paraphrase).JQ (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

-What I don't understand is how Exonsecrets is a reference. If they can be used as a reference what site can't be? Prk166 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific criticism

Lindzen has made a number of statements that are (to the best of my knowledge) strongly contradicted by a weight of scientific evidence. I'm surprised to see that mention isn't made of his claims about water vapour, for example, and his repeated and deliberate mischaracterisation of findings. One might get the impression from reading this that he is merely a contrarian with alternative theories - not one who rejects established and independently verified findings. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

People tend to remove his more wacky statements as "unencyclopaedic". I've just restored one I hadn't realised had gone William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A new article blog says this article is being censored

This article says that this article is beng censored. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog, not an article. --Art Smart (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And its cr*p William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And this article by Lindzen himself says that "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence."

• censored with Twinkle

How ironic: we censor complaints of censorship. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Funding

Lindzen made only $10,000 total from fossil fuel interests, and has had NO communication with auto companies. Strangely I seem to be the first to ATTEMPT to post this fact only now in May 08! and have gone through hell trying to get that small but important fact to remain in Wiki, against the determined effort of KIMDABELSTEINPETERSEN. What is constantly left out in Lindzen criticisms is his reply in 2006 to journalist Alex Beam of Boston Globe in "MIT's inconvenient scientist" article, which should be a fixture in the criticisms section(although people are trying hard to blank out important info there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs)

First: Please sign your posts.

Second: Nothing is left out - since this is in fact in the article.

Third: It is irrelevant whether Beam is a journalist. He is writing as a columnist in this instance - and that is what we care about - since that determines what the editorial oversight demands are for the writing. To write journalist/columnist is WP:PEACOCK, and misleading. If people are interested in Mr. Beam they go to his wikilinked article. There is a difference between the fact-checking that is done in the editorial process of a column and a regular news item.

Beam is relating his own version of what Lindzen said. You have to be very careful about such instances. Lets assume for a moment that what Beam relates is wrong - and someone turns up that Lindzen received money from other interests, and point to wikipedia to show that Lindzen is a lier? Relate precisely what is said. Do not make it look like Beam interviewed Lindzen (as you've done earlier) - because that is not what the column relates ... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

First: You are the famous Kimdabelsteinpetersen person/group that has been ever active in Richard Lindzen's and other global warming posts? Your rep speaks for itself. Google "Solomon kimdabelsteinpetersen" to find out what other names this group/person goes under, and their tactics. Solomon has a good article on you and what may be other monikers you go under, one can read in the National Post of Canada titled "Wikipedia's Zealots" http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx .

Second: It was only left in the article after you blanked it out and I was forced to keep putting the info back into the article...you deleted my entire first entry then you attempted to lie about deleting it, posing yourself as editing that initial post to say it was Beam's impression of what Lindzen said.

Third: Before given time to edit and with discussion taking place after the fact, you've instantly blanked dates, links, other relevant information and now you insist time and again on blanking the relevant notion that Alex Beam is a "journalist". It's relevant because Beam WOULD USE his JOURNALIST abilities to keep to journalistic standards, even when writing a column. Alex Beam, who for decades has been a journalist(PBS's title for him) with an unblemished resume spanning Newsweek, Business Week, and now his award winning column at the Boston Globe. For whatever reason you are determined through several blankings, to eliminate the idea that his article "MIT's Inconvenient Scientist" is not journalism but simply a commentary...that article contains both journalism(new verifiable information, including quotes), and commentary(although commentary is also journalism), therefore the reader needs to know if Beam has the journalistic credentials to offer journalism. You say to us here maybe, but in the article are determined to imply NO,...PBS, the Boston Globe, ME, Newsweek, Business Week, and others say YES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time i'm going to ask you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (the first two times where on your talk page - which you've blanked). These are not guidelines - they are policies, and if you continue in this vein - you will end up being banned.

Yes, i reverted the very first attempt on this paragraph [4], because it was editorializing, POV and didn't describe the source faithfully (one columnist doesn't make "supporters or even a supporter). Then i edited the paragraph to something very close to the current version - to reduce POV. [5].

Your description of Beam is pure original research, and has no place here. He is probably a very good journalist. But what Wikipedia is interested in, is what amount of editorial oversight a specific source has, not what our personal opinions about specific journalists or sources is. There is a difference between columns and regular journalistic pieces, and the difference lies in the amount of freedom the writer has to express his personal views, and the amount of editorial oversight that the articles receive. And that is what we adhere to.

There is apparently only one reason to mention Beam as a journalist here, and that seems to be to inflate the importance of his piece. And that is not allowed per. WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to flush down your assertion that calling a journalist a "journalist" equates to an attempt at inflating the importance of a piece of information. The pipes are already clogged with other "Kimdabelsteinpetersens", such as the definition of 'journalism' ripped out of the pages of Webster's. Wikipedia's zealots evaporate facts like magic. I just got Kimdabelsteinpetersened! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP problematic section

I've cut this entire section, as it is unreferenced. The reference for the suit does not mention Lindzen - and relying entirely on a debunk from Beam seems to be rather strange. Please find references for the section, and the claim that Lindzen was indentified in that particular suit, before reinserting

In 2006, Lindzen was identified in a lawsuit brought forth by major auto companies[Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep Inc. v. Catherine Witherspoon, No. 04-6663] in which the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council demanded, in a pre-trial discovery motion, the entire correspondence between several scientists (including Lindzen) and the auto companies. Environmental Defense attorney Jim Marston said of Lindzen and the 15 other scientists, ``We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did,". Lindzen replied to columnist Alex Beam about the attempt to link his science to the auto companies``This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," and added he[Lindzen] has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems it has been reinserted without any comments here. Please address the WP:BLP issues with this section. The entire section seems to be hearsay, unless a reference is provided. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've RE-ADDED the very relevant info regarding the Environmental Defense accusations and Lindzen's response, AS REPORTED IN THE BOSTON GLOBE BY AWARD WINNING JOURNALIST ALEX BEAM. Please don't erase the info. Please discuss why first here, if you intend on editing it. You could've been helpful and edited it, but instead you simply erased the info which would've been helpful to those attempting to research Lindzen. Again, for the sake of those attempting to research the truth, please don't give the idea that a quoted accusation by Environmental Defense was never documented by a professional journalist, or that Lindzen did not offer a quote and perspective to that award winning journalist in return. Please stop slashing facts from Wiki. I haven't erased anyone's information, I simply want a couple key helpful facts and links to remain so people can make an informed decision.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Try addressing the problems that has been pointed out, before reinsertion. You are putting undue weight on something that we have no information about. What case is it? Has it been covered by other reliable sources? Why was Lindzen involved? What were the claims about Lindzen? What were the results of the case? Was there any claim at all, that Lindzen had talked to General Motors? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)