text:
Talk:National Academy of Sciences

More on CNN misrepresentation of NAS report
Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was one of eleven members of the National Academy Sciences panel on climate change. As a result of what he considered misrepresentation by the media of the resulting report by that NAS panel, Dr. Lindzen published an analysis/opinion piece that appeared in a number of publications, including the June 11, 2001 The Wall Street Journal. Sad to say, his critical remarks were nowhere noted in the scientific press (at least in the 50 or so journals to which we subscribe, including Nature and Science), which continued to report on the NAS panel as if there were a consensus and that that consensus was in support of the Kyoto Treaty. Dr. Lindzen says otherwise.

According to Dr. Lindzen, CNN's Michelle Mitchell was "typical of the coverage when she declared that the [NAS] report represented a 'unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.'" Lindzen's response: "As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue." For example, he notes that far too much public attention has been paid to the "hastily" prepared summary than to the body of the report. "Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; )2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But -- and I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."

Dr. Lindzen noted that the NAS panel was asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. He concludes that "Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government." He feels that "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalister (talk • contribs)
 * Your link is broken, and the "lifeservices.com" domain is not in use. You might want to replace that with a functional link so people can get a look at what kind of scientists Durk and Sandy are.
 * As it stands, your appendix (diff) is insufficiently specific and worded as a vague negation of that which preceeds it.
 * The suggestion that Global Warming skeptics comprise "a large part of the scientific community" is misleading.
 * The sentence is made grammatically confusing by that phrase. I doubt "The statement [referring to the Joint Declaration On Global Warming] stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is [...] still disputed by a large part of the scientific community", which is how that sentence now parses.
 * Also, please sign your Talk Page contributions. Typing four tildes ( ~ ) will do this for you automatically. edgarde 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil War
What exactly is the relation between the foundation of the USNAS and the Civil War? How come the latter created a need for the earlier?  // Halibutt 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't quite address your question, but here's some info: 1863 Act of Incorporation and if you're really interested, you can poke around the online version of the 1978 book: The National Academy of Sciences: The First Hundred Years, 1863-1963, or find it in a library. Michael Jon Jensen 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Highlighting a Negative POV
Two sentences are highlighted with either italics or bold. This sentence is in italics: "hurriedly wrote the bill incorporating the Academy, including in it the name of fifty incorporators". This sentence is in bold: "Without examining it or debating its provisions, both the Senate and House approved it, and President Lincoln signed it." What is the reason to highlight these sentences? Which Wiki policy describes the selection of sentences for highlight? All in all, the Overview section seems to be a citationless, negative critique masquerading as an overview. evo 19:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
This section was recently removed. The references contain language such as "didn’t really look objectively at all the evidence", which supports the claims made in the article. Kborer 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This section was removed again. The reference is a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, which implies that it is valid. Kborer 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This section was removed again. This time the reason seemed to be "because the source agrees with his own opinion".  If you could make your concerns more clear, that would be helpful. Kborer 13:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Gun control? Fluoride?  These do not qualify as NPOV or even verifiable sources.  They are merely simple, poorly written web pages that support a very POV commentary about the NAS.  Orangemarlin 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The sources are unverifiable and self-published, and do not represent legitimate criticism. WP:V Quadpus 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I fat-fingered the return key before writing my edit summary on my last revert. There isn't anything of substance in this section which can be redeemed by finding a better citation. You don't make facts up and then try to come up with citations afterward. Quadpus 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The first is an op-ed article published in the New York Post, and now hosted on the author's website. The author is one of the most well known academic experts on gun control, criticizing NAS on its work regarding gun control.  This is a legitimate source to support the claim in the criticisms section.  The second is an opinion published in a peer reviewed journal by a group of experts who are criticizing NAS on its work related to their field of expertise.  This is a legitimate source to support the claim in the criticisms section.  The information regarding the original publications is present in both references.  If anything, the criticisms section should be expanded to discuss both of these criticisms in more detail so that people understand why NAS is being criticized, not deleted repeatedly.  If anyone thinks that I have not adequately responded to your complaints about the section, please elaborate on what you think is wrong with the sources.  Kborer 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The broad-brush claim of "criticism" is hardly supported by a 2004 tabloid article by the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" and correspondence from the 1970s which an anti-fluoride group has put on its website. If that's the sort of level of criticism, the NAS is doing remarkably well with only grumbles from a non-notable tiny minority. .. dave souza, talk 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The first thing that you are implying is that the claim made in the section is severe. However, it only says one simple thing: that NAS has been criticized.  It makes no claim that the critics are correct, nor does it use any flowery language like "grumbles" to create a POV.  Of course, if you are unsatisfied with with how it is written, you could suggest a better way to write it.  The second thing you are implying is that the sources are bad, but as I explained above, they are valid.  Kborer 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Saying 'X has been criticized' when the criticism itself isn't notable is hardly encyclopedic Quadpus 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. If anyone thinks that the criticism is not notable please explain why.  Kborer 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that the burden is on you to show that it is notable Quadpus 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * NAS is an organization of scientific advisers to the government dedicated to serving the public good. It is a significant criticism when their colleagues in the scientific community point out instances where NAS has been used to promote political agendas rather than following their founding principles.  Kborer 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Their colleagues in the scientific community have done no such thing, as far as I can see. You are putting forth your personal opinion here. Quadpus 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Lott and many of the authors in the second reference are university professors, so it is not my personal opinion, it is a factual statement. I said colleagues in the scientific community to emphasis that their academic appointments are in the same fields as the materials being used as references.  Kborer 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While we are discussing sources of criticism, I'd like to see if anyone has an opinion on this one: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=715  Kborer 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It's a blog, and probably not acceptable.
 * I'm noticing the External links section has links of similar quality. These should really come out too. / edgarde 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, here are my issues with the section. First, neutral point of view requires verifiable sources.  A blog and a single New York Post article hardly qualify as verifiable.  Also, there are certain red flags that are showing up with this section that are troubling not only to me, but to many editors who keep reverting it.  Here's what are the Wiki recommendations for politically charged edits:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
 * Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
 * Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
 * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
 * Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.

For guidance related to the creation of entire articles about said topics, see Fringe theories.

 * The National Academy of Sciences is one of the most prestigious and non-political organizations in the United States. However, I am not so blind to believe even an organization such as this one is not without some level of criticism.  But if you're going to put criticisms in this article, as an editor, I would demand that it be verified by a number of sources, it is well written, and adheres to an NPOV.  Just because they criticize the gun lobby is not a criticism.  If they did it without proper documentation or are overstepping their mandate, that is a valid and neutral point.  Orangemarlin 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Your first point is that the sources are inadequate. The first source is the opinion of a well known expert regarding his area of expertise, so even if it was only a self published source it would have been good enough.  The fact that it was published elsewhere is merely reassuring.  The second was published in a peer reviewed journal, which on its own would have been good enough.  The fact that is from non-well known experts regarding their area of expertise is merely reassuring.  By contrast, the third potential reference that I mentioned earlier on this talk page is a well known expert in his area, but the source is only self published.  Your second point is that certain red flags have shown up, but in neither reference are there 1) surprising or important claims, 2) otherwise unknown recent events, 3) any mis-characterizations, 4) unsupported claims, 5) nor exceptional claims of any kind.  These are reputable persons communicating their concern at the conduct of the organization, not sensationalists.  You demand that there be multiple sources for the criticism and there are.  You demand that the one sentence that comprised the section be well written and NPOV and it was.  Your last point is that they were unjustly criticized, but that is irrelevant.  Kborer 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, a tabloid newspaper article reproduced on the personal website of a lobbyist and the website of a lobby group are not reliable sources, and a couple of old non-notable criticisms by those advancing political agendas should not be given undue weight in this article about a national body. .. dave souza, talk 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * About all this deserves is actually nothing according to undue weight. I'm not even sure why we are discussing this fringe theory.  Both articles are written by conspiracy nuts who are neither notable nor very good writers.  Again, if there is a substantial, well written, meaningful and verifiable criticism that numbers more than one person, let's hear it.  But the NAS is one of those institutions that works hard to be neutral and scientific.  Orangemarlin 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I have not had a chance to check the above concerns yet, but here is another source. http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/168110/ Kborer 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the actual source is a review in the NYTimes. But it' does discuss the general tendency of the publisher, and I think it could go it--but without much discussion of the specific subject of the report, which would distort the article. If we had an article on the report, details could go there. This cannot possibly be a place to repeat a full discussion of every controversial subject the NAS has published a book on.  DGG 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

appropriate place for controversy
It seems reasonable to me that only controversy about the general operations or overall policy of the USNAS would go in this article--e.g. a charge that it has frequently been too deferential to administration views, or, conversely, that it has not been responsive enough to Administration concerns. But controversy over one particular issue, or one particular report, should go in the article on the issue, or on the article for the report if there is a specific article for it. Dealing with the NAS role in the global warming controversy belongs with the articles on the global warming controversy. Discussion of the role of its reports in gun control belong with that topic--and similarly for other topics. As I see it, otherwise would be undue weight in this very general article. DGG 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to National Academy of Sciences?
In 2005, an editor moved this article from National Academy of Sciences to United States National Academy of Sciences (see ) in order to "Make title less US-centric." This seems ill-advised to me--similar to moving Royal Academy to United Kingdom Royal Academy. The title is now neither the common or the official name. The largest number of articles still link to National Academy of Sciences rather than directly here, with more being redirected from National Academy of Science, National Academies of Science, National Academies of Sciences, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National academy of science, and National Academy of Sciences, USA. Is there any opposition to moving it back? If other nations have organizations named Foo National Academy of Sciences, we can deal with it through the normal disambiguation processes.--Hjal 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed--the title of the organization in National Academy of Sciences. If it became necessary to qualify it, it would be with a (United States) at then end--at one time the British abbreviation of the Journal was in fact proceedings of the national Academy of sciences (U.S.)--the first rule of qualification and abbreviation ,etc, is not to change the first letter of the name. But since this is  rather far reaching move for a long-established name,, please     follow the full  procedure at WP:RM listing it on the page there -- Its really rather pointless since almost nobody looks at WP:RM to check, but do it so nobody can complain. Moving it back may have some technical problems in terms of pre-existing pages, but i can deal with that part. There will however be many redirects to change, and some help will be appreciated there. DGG (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reassessed as C class. --M @ r ē ino 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Denied Use of National Science Education Standards
Consider adding this information: nationalacademies

--92.229.186.54 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro bono? Where's the money?
The introduction to this states that the members serve "pro bono". However, the report on the problems with the FDA [was described as costing $1.8 million dollars. The 2009 Omnibus Act said that "the Secretary of Energy shall provide funding to the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an inventory of the energy development potential on all lands currently managed by the Department of Energy" . I don't think the NRC committees really serve pro bono. Where did this pro bono stuff come from? [[User:ImperfectlyInformed| II ]] | (t - c) 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The committee members serve pro bono, but they require staff and resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.171.192.130 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe airfare and a basic per-diem for living expenses might also be provided--but the scientists are not paid beyond that.Pengortm (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Pickering
"Edward C. Pickering (1846-1919) was the youngest scientist elected." his lifetime (1846-1919) is not significant information. how old was he and what year was it?99.147.192.189 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful in the future
this image was in the article and now seems not to work. it may be useful for someone in the future working on this article:

Isn't http://www.nas.edu/ needed since different domain?
Isn't http://www.nas.edu/ needed since different domain? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain request. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking at the web sites, http://www.nas.edu/ is the web site of the National Academies, one of which is the National Academy of Sciences. Others include the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the message from Arthur. http://www.nas.edu/ is the URL for whole set of U.S. National Academies, while http://www.nasonline.org is the specific one for the National Academy of Sciences. -- SchreyP (messages) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Orangemarlin question? 99.190.86.115 (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Related move request
See Talk:National Academy of Sciences + m t  20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Above link is no longer valid. Due to the move the discussion can now be found at Talk:National Academy of Sciences (disambiguation). -- SchreyP (messages) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sagan
It should be noted that in 1992 the NAS decided NOT to admit Carl Sagan as a member. Sagan published over 500 scientific papers in a 39-year career, and worked tirelessly to promote a scientific worldview, writing many books widely read by the public and which moved many youngsters. Whether the NAS decision (and the reasoning/politics of it) deserves a place in this article, the fact needs to stay afloat. Particularly as science, which has been so instrumental in US success, becomes less and less relevant in the decisions being made in the US ... while climate change faces us squarely in the face. Twang (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of Summary section due to missing material on status and organization changes...
The NAS had an incredible role in the civil war as one reader asked about.. I was pleased to put this picture together for the article.. please review it and I propose to move it into the mani article shortly.. Thanks

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation for the furtherance of science and technology, required to advise the United States federal government upon request within the Academy's fields of competence. The Academy, ..."although a national organization chartered by Congress, is not a governmental agency and receives no direct federal appropriations for its work". The Academy retains full control over the selection and appointment of study committees members and operates under its own procedures and rules. The Academy assumes ..."full responsibility for assuring the objectivity of its studies and reports."

Its very first act in 1864 was to consider the subject of decimalization as part of the “Uniformity of Weights, Measures, and Coins, considered in relation to domestic and international commerce”. That first year, the academy received requests for services for six projects;two by application from the Treasury Department (One for the decimialzation project discussed above but also measures to prevent counterfeiting Union currency), one from the Oﬁice of United States Weights and Measures, of the same Department, and three by application from the Navy Department, or, under its authority, from the Bureau of Navigation.

The US Navy requested advice on protecting of the bottoms of iron vessels from corrosion by sea-water and the correction of the compasses of naval vessels, especially of iron vessels and of iron-clads. The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution placed the laboratory under his charge at the disposal of the Academy Committee. The Academy reported two important practical results in its first year of operations during the American Civil War: one, eliminating one of the two binnacles in the pilot-house of the iron naval vessels, each interfering with the other in its use; and second, the compass corrections on twenty-two iron or iron-clad vessels, or of wooden vessels in which the local attraction was found to be inconvenient, from the presence of engines and boilers, of iron rigging, and other iron works. The Academy performed this research on US Navy vessels in the course of construction, especially the three-turreted iron-clads, the USS Roanoke, and of the monitor USS Passaic (1862).

Under its corporate charter, the Academy established the National Research Council in 1916, the National Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine in 1970. Prior to 1970, the Academy's work was in response Federal agencies requests rather than the United States Congress. Although Congressional requests are addressed to some of the more significant public policy issues related to science and technology sometimes the Academy contracting directly with the congressional committees for studies. The United States Congress passes legislation that directs cabinet officers or agency heads of the US Federal Government to enter into contractual or grant arrangements with the Academy. Studies undertaken for the government by the constituent units of the Academy usually are funded out of appropriations made available to federal agencies.

Risk Engineer (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Academy of Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229155642/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_building to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215071321/http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf to http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

National Academy of Sciences' Award in Applied Mathematics and Numerical Analysis
There are several scientists (e.g. Alexandre Chorin, Paul Garabedian) who have been awarded this NAS prize which is given every three years to scientists who make outstanding contributions to research.. I wonder why this award is not listed here. Hodsha (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:National Academy of Sciences


text:
Aimable Pélissier

Aimable-Jean-Jacques Pélissier, 1st Duc de Malakoff (6 November 1794 – 22 May 1864), was a Marshal of France. He served in Algeria where he became widely known for his cruel conduct and extermination of entire tribes. He also served elsewhere, and as a general commanded the French forces in the Crimean War.

Biography
Pélissier was born at Maromme (Seine Inférieure), of a family of prosperous artisans, his father being employed in a powder-magazine. After attending the military college of La Flèche and the special school of St Cyr, he entered the army in 1815 as second-lieutenant in an artillery regiment. Brilliant examination results in 1819 secured his appointment to the staff. He served as aide-de-camp in the Spanish campaign of 1823, and in the Morea expedition 1828–1829. In 1830, he took part in the expedition to Algeria, and on his return was promoted to the rank of chef d'escadron.

After some years of staff service in Paris, he was again sent to Algeria as chief of staff of the province of Oran with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and remained there until the Crimean War, taking a leading part in many important operations. However, the severity of his conduct in suffocating the whole Ouled Riah tribe in the Dahra or Dahna caves, near Mostaganem, where they had taken refuge (18 June 1845), aroused such indignation in Europe that Marshal Soult, the minister of war, publicly expressed his regret; but Marshal Bugeaud, the governor-general of Algeria, not only approved, but secured for Pélissier the rank of général de brigade (Brigadier-General), which he held until 1850, when he was promoted to général de division (Major-General). In 1852 he successfully commanded the Siege of Laghouat. After the battles of October and November 1854 before Sevastopol, Pélissier was sent to the Crimea, where on 16 May 1855 he succeeded Marshal Canrobert as commander-in-chief of the French forces before the Siege of Sevastopol. His command was marked by relentless pressure of the enemy and unalterable determination to conduct the campaign without interference from Paris. His perseverance was crowned with success in the storming of the Tower of Malakoff on 8 September which ended the Siege of Sevastopol, crowning the Anglo-French Crimean War against Russia with victory. On the 12th he was promoted to marshal. On his return to Paris he was named senator, created Duke of Malakoff (22 July 1856; the only other victory title awarded by Napoleon III, also ducal, was for the victory by Patrice de MacMahon in the battle of Magenta, in the Italian campaign), and rewarded with a grant of 100,000 francs per annum.

From March 1858 to May 1859, he was French ambassador in London, but was recalled to take command of the army of observation on the Rhine. In the same year, he became Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honour. In 1860, he was appointed Governor-General of unruly colony of Algeria.

His Excellency the Duke died there in 1864, when the dukedom became extinct.

Honours

 * Second French Empire: Baton of Maréchal de France
 * Second French Empire: Grand Chancelier and Grand Croix of the Legion of Honour
 * Second French Empire: Médaille militaire
 * Bourbon Restoration: Order of Saint Louis
 * 🇪🇸 Spain: Laureate Cross of Saint Ferdinand
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: Honorary Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (military division), 12 November 1855
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: Crimea Medal
 * 🇧🇪 Belgium: Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold
 * Kingdom of Sardinia: Grand Cordon of the Military Order of Savoy
 * Kingdom of Sardinia: Sardinian Crimea Medal
 * Kingdom of Portugal: Order of Christ
 * 🇹🇳 Tunisia: Grand Cordon of the Order of Glory
 * Ottoman Empire: Grand Cordon of the Order of the Medjidie

Popular culture
In 1855, Stephen Glover wrote The Duke of Malakoff's March.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Aimable Pélissier


text:
Richard Lindzen

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".

Early life and education
Lindzen was born on February 8, 1940, in Webster, Massachusetts. His father, a shoemaker, had fled Nazi Germany with his mother. Lindzen moved to The Bronx soon after his birth and grew up in a Jewish household in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood.

Lindzen attended the Bronx High School of Science, where he won Regents' and National Merit Scholarships, then Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute before matriculating at Harvard University. In 1960, he received his Bachelor of Arts in physics, magna cum laude, followed by a Master of Science in applied mathematics in 1961 and a Ph.D. in applied mathematics in 1964. His doctoral thesis, Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics, involved the interactions of ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics in the middle atmosphere.

Career
Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages and seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou.

Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He joined MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–65), the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology at the University of Copenhagen, the University of Oslo (1965–67), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–67), and the University of Chicago (1968–72). From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. Lindzen also briefly held a position of visiting lecturer at UCLA in 1967.

As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009. He is the author of a standard textbook on atmospheric dynamics, and co-authored the monograph Atmospheric Tides with Sydney Chapman.

He was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT from 1983, until his retirement which was reported in the Spring 2013 newsletter of MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). On December 27, 2013, the Cato Institute announced his appointment as a Distinguished Senior Fellow in its Center for the Study of Science.

Early work (1964–1972)
Lindzen's early work was concerned with ozone photochemistry, the aerodynamics of the middle atmosphere, the theory of atmospheric tides, and planetary waves. His work in these areas led him to a number of fundamental scientific discoveries, including the discovery of negative equivalent depths in classical tidal theory, explanations for both the quasi-biennial oscillation of the Earth's stratosphere and the four-day period of the superrotation of the Venus atmosphere above the cloud top.

Ozone photochemistry
His PhD thesis of 1964 concerned the interactions of ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and the dynamics of the middle atmosphere. This formed the basis of his seminal Radiative and Photochemical Processes in Mesospheric Dynamics that was published in four parts in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences between 1965 and 1966. The first of these, Part I: Models for Radiative and Photochemical Processes, was co-authored with his Harvard colleague and former PhD thesis advisor, Richard M. Goody, who is well known for his 1964 textbook Atmospheric Radiation. The Lindzen and Goody (1965) study has been widely cited as foundational in the exact modeling of middle atmosphere ozone photochemistry. This work was extended in 1973 to include the effects of nitrogen and hydrogen reactions with his former PhD student, Donna Blake, in Effect of photochemical models on calculated equilibria and cooling rates in the stratosphere.

Lindzen's work on ozone photochemistry has been important in studies that look at the effects that anthropogenic ozone depletion will have on climate.

Atmospheric tides
Since the time of Pierre-Simon Laplace (1799), scientists had been puzzled as to why pressure variations measured at the Earth's surface associated with the semi-diurnal solar tide dominate those of the diurnal tide in amplitude, when intuitively one would expect the diurnal passage of the sun to dominate. Lord Kelvin (1882) had proposed the so-called "resonance" theory, wherein the semi-diurnal tide would be "selected" over the diurnal oscillation if the atmosphere was somehow able to oscillate freely at a period of very close to 12 hours, in the same way that overtones are selected on a vibrating string. By the second half of the twentieth century, however, observations had failed to confirm this hypothesis, and an alternative hypothesis was proposed that something must instead suppress the diurnal tide. In 1961, Manfred Siebert suggested that absorption of solar insolation by tropospheric water vapour might account for the reduction of the diurnal tide. However, he failed to include a role for stratospheric ozone. This was rectified in 1963 by the Australian physicist Stuart Thomas Butler and his student K.A. Small who showed that stratospheric ozone absorbs an even greater part of the solar insolation.

Nevertheless, the predictions of classical tidal theory still did not agree with observations. It was Lindzen, in his 1966 paper, On the theory of the diurnal tide, who showed that the solution set of Hough functions given by Bernhard Haurwitz to Laplace's tidal equation was incomplete: modes with negative equivalent depths had been omitted. Lindzen went on to calculate the thermal response of the diurnal tide to ozone and water vapor absorption in detail and showed that when his theoretical developments were included, the surface pressure oscillation was predicted with approximately the magnitude and phase observed, as were most of the features of the diurnal wind oscillations in the mesosphere. In 1967, along with his NCAR colleague, Douglas D. McKenzie, Lindzen extended the theory to include a term for Newtonian cooling due to emission of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the stratosphere along with ozone photochemical processes, and then in 1968 he showed that the theory also predicted that the semi-diurnal oscillation would be insensitive to variations in the temperature profile, which is why it is observed so much more strongly and regularly at the surface.

While holding the position of research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO Lindzen was noticed and befriended by Professor Sydney Chapman, who had contributed to the theory of atmospheric tides in a number of papers from the 1920s through to the 1940s. This led to their joint publication in 1969 of a 186-page monograph (republished in 1970 as a book) Atmospheric Tides.

Quasi-biennial oscillation
Although it wasn't realized at the time, the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) was observed during the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, when the ash from the volcano was transported around the globe from east to west by stratospheric winds in about two weeks. These winds became known as the "Krakatoa easterlies". It was observed again in 1908, by the German meteorologist Arthur Berson, who saw that winds blow from the west at 15 km altitude in tropical Africa from his balloon experiments. These became known as the "Berson westerlies". However, it was not until the early 1960s that the ~ 26-month cycle of the QBO was first described, independently by Richard J. Reed in 1960 and Veryhard and Ebdon in 1961.

Lindzen recalls his discovery of the mechanism underlying the QBO in the semi-autobiographical review article, On the development of the theory of the QBO. His interest in the phenomenon began in 1961 when his PhD advisor, Richard M. Goody, speculated that the 26-month relaxation time for stratospheric ozone at 25 km in the tropics might somehow be related to the 26-month period of the QBO, and suggested investigation of this idea as a thesis topic. In fact, Lindzen's, Radiative and photochemical processes in mesospheric dynamics, Part II: Vertical propagation of long period disturbances at the equator, documented the failure of this attempt to explain the QBO.

Lindzen's work on atmospheric tides led him to the study of planetary waves and the general circulation of atmospheres. By 1967, he had contributed a number of papers on the theory of waves in the middle atmosphere. In Planetary waves on beta planes, he developed a beta plane approximation for simplifying the equations of classical tidal theory, whilst at the same time developing planetary wave relations. He noticed from his equations that eastward-traveling waves (known as Rossby waves since their discovery in 1939 by Carl-Gustav Rossby) and westward-traveling waves (which Lindzen himself helped in establishing as "atmospheric Kelvin waves") with periods less than five days were "vertically trapped." At the same time, an important paper by Booker and Bretherton appeared, which Lindzen read with great interest. Booker and Bretherton showed that vertically propagating gravity waves were completely absorbed at a critical level.

In his 1968 paper with James R. Holton, A theory of the quasi-biennial oscillation, Lindzen presented his theory of the QBO after testing it in a two-dimensional (2-D) numerical model that had been developed by Holton and John M. Wallace. They showed that the QBO could be driven by vertically propagating gravity waves with phase speeds in both westward and eastward directions and that the oscillation arose through a mechanism involving a two-way feedback between the waves and the mean flow. It was a bold conjecture, given that there was very little observational evidence available to either confirm or confute the hypothesis. In particular, there was still no observational evidence of the westward-traveling "Kelvin" waves; Lindzen postulated their existence theoretically.

In the years following the publication of Lindzen and Holton (1968), more observational evidence became available, and Lindzen's fundamental insight into the mechanism driving the QBO was confirmed. However, the theory of interaction via critical level absorption was found to be incomplete and was modified to include the importance of attenuation due to radiative cooling. The revised theory was published in the Holton and Lindzen (1972) paper, An updated theory for the quasibiennial cycle of the tropical stratosphere.

Superrotation of Venus
Since the 1960s a puzzling phenomenon has been observed in the atmosphere of Venus. The atmosphere above the cloud base is seen to travel around the planet about 50 times faster than the rotation of the planet surface, or in only four to five Earth-days. In 1974 a theory was proposed by Stephen B. Fels and Lindzen to explain this so-called "superrotation" which held that the rotation is driven by the thermal atmospheric tide. An alternative theory was proposed by Peter J. Gierasch in the following year which held instead that the meridional (Hadley) circulation may transport the momentum by eddy-mixing. As of 2005, the actual cause of this phenomenon continued to be debated in the literature, with General Circulation Model experiments suggesting that both the Fels/Lindzen and Gierasch mechanisms are involved.

Middle period (1972–1990)
From 1972 to 1982 Lindzen was a professor of dynamic meteorology at Harvard University. From February to June 1975 he was a visiting professor of dynamic meteorology at MIT, and during part of 1979 Lindzen was a visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, before switching affiliations to MIT as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in 1983.

During this time, Lindzen published some research on gravity waves, as well as Hadley circulations. He is named as one of 16 Scientific Members of the team authoring the National Academy of Sciences 1975 publication Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action.

Climate sensitivity
Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere. Additionally, rising temperatures would cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere. Lindzen disputed this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.

Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and all existing computer models assume positive feedback — that is, that as the climate warms, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere will increase, leading to further warming. By contrast, Lindzen believes that temperature increases will actually cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence as a result of the Iris effect, nullifying future warming. This claim was criticized by climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of the effects of the Iris effect and cites empirical cases where large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Niño events, the Ultra-Plinian eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and recent trends in global temperature and water vapor levels show that, as predicted in the generally-accepted view, water vapor increases as the temperature increases, and decreases as temperatures decrease.

Contrary to the IPCC's assessment in 2001, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid. Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 C-change of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 C-change, ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data. These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others, and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS. The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication. Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."

NAS panel
In 2001, Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel's report, titled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, has been widely cited. Lindzen subsequently publicly criticized the report summary for not referring to the statement in the full report that twenty years of temperature measurements was "too short a period for estimating long term trends".

IPCC activities
Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment". He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science" although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report but had been amended to state more definite conclusions. He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone. The NAS panel on which Lindzen served says that the summary was the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers.

Work at Cato Institute
Lindzen was a featured speaker at a Cato Institute conference, "Global Environmental Crisis: Science or Politics?" on June 5 (World Environment Day) and June 6, 1991. The conference was identified in 2019 in the book Kochland by business writer Christopher Leonard as a previously unhighlighted early landmark in the efforts by the fossil fuel multi-billionaire Koch brothers to promote questions about climate science. Cato Institute was "founded and heavily funded for years" by the Kochs, and Lindzen was prominently quoted in the brochure for the conference. "The notion that global warming is a fact and will be catastrophic is drilled into people to the point where it seems surprising that anyone would question it, and yet, underlying it is very little evidence at all. Nonetheless, there are statements made of such overt unrealism that I feel embarrassed. I feel it discredits science. I think problems will arise when one will need to depend on scientific judgment, and by ruining our credibility now you leave society with a resource of some importance diminished." The title of the presentation Lindzen made at the conference was "Critical Issues in Climate Forecasting".

In an announcement on December 27, 2013, the Institute said that in a new position at Cato, Lindzen's focus would be on "the interaction between science and policymakers" and that he would study "whether the move from largely private funding to public support has introduced biases into science and the public policies informed by science."

By mid-2019, Lindzen was no longer affiliated with the Cato institute.

Views on climate change
In June 1992, a year after the Cato Institute conference, Lindzen signed the Heidelberg Appeal.

He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, claiming that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming. In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said: "We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

In a 2009 editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and says that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. Lindzen states that the IPCC's 2001 findings were

"Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper.

Comments addressed to U.S. policymakers
Starting in 1991, Lindzen has provided testimonies to the U.S. Senate and House committees regarding his understandings of the current state of research on climate change for multiple times.

In 2001, Lindzen urged the Bush administration not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In a letter to Mayor David B. Cohen of Newton, Massachusetts, Lindzen wrote that he believed the Kyoto Protocol would increase the cost of electricity for no gain, putting signatory states at a competitive disadvantage.

In 2017, Lindzen sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. The petition contained the names of "around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals", and called on the United States and other nations to "change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases," starting with carbon dioxide. It received considerable media coverage; 22 then- current or retired MIT professors promptly issued an open letter addressed to Trump saying that Lindzen's petition does not represent their views or those of the vast majority of other climate scientists.

Third-party characterizations of Lindzen
An April 30, 2012, article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."

A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent". William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous". He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing". He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good". John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".

The November 10, 2004, online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now". However, on June 8, 2005, they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.

Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) ), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to." Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."

Awards and honors
Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was 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. Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher, and his biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science.

Personal life
Richard Lindzen and his wife, Nadine, have two sons. Lindzen's interests include amateur radio, photography, and oriental rugs.

Articles

 * "What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist", The Weekly Standard, January 13, 2014
 * "What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist", The Weekly Standard, January 13, 2014
 * "What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist", The Weekly Standard, January 13, 2014
 * "What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist", The Weekly Standard, January 13, 2014
 * "What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist", The Weekly Standard, January 13, 2014

title: Richard Lindzen


text:
Talk:Richard Lindzen

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Richard Lindzen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619054256/http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf to http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524223414/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091703C to http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=091703C
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718191204/http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf to http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618014350/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Lindzen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918000835/http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1980/sbf8001.pdf to http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1980/sbf8001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223145833/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

11 scientists
"In 2001, Lindzen along with 11 scientists prepared a report urging the Bush Administration"

Who are those scientists? Are they microbiologists or solid-state physicists, or do they have any expertise regarding climate? Do they work for denial think tanks, like Lindzen did? The source, The Wall Street Journal, a notorious denier outfit and not a reliable source when it comes to climatology, does not say. I don't think we should just repeat their propaganda wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10139 Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * This is often a problem with denialist articles; last year I cleaned up William Happer, which had lots of primary sourced "this is a thing he said" comments, assembled with no identifiable principle, and misuse of secondary sources. Possibly, a similar trimming would be a good idea in this article, too.  (I admit to not looking carefully at the existing sourcing here before writing this comment.) --JBL (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Okayy... the number is the same. Lindzen plus 11. But it does not seem to say what the WSJ says it says.
 * When I look at the Wikipedia articles of the people involved, I get this:

 * Ralph Cicerone: "In 2001, while chancellor of UCI, Dr. Cicerone led an academy panel, commissioned by President George W. Bush, tasked with reporting to him on climate change. The panel concluded unequivocally that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."[3]"
 * Eric J. Barron: Nothing specific.
 * Robert E. Dickinson: Nothing specific.
 * Inez Fung: Nothing specific.
 * James Hansen: "He was a critic of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations' stances on climate change.[73] Addressing the potential effects of climate change, Hansen has stated in an interview in January, 2009, "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."[74]"
 * Thomas R. Karl: Nothing specific.
 * James C. McWilliams: Nothing specific.
 * F. Sherwood Rowland: Not even any mention of climate, only weather.
 * Edward S. Sarachik: We do not have page on him at the moment, but Google says he writes books about "The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon".
 * John Michael Wallace: Nothing specific.

 * So, of all the articles on people in the panel, two mention the panel, Cicerone and Lindzen. Lindzen is the only one who is on the List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. And the Lindzen article quotes the Wall Street Journal taking Lindzen's opinion on Kyoto and multiplying it by 12.
 * Your link says nothing about "urging not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol". It does mention Kyoto, but it says the IPCC was "influential in international negotiations related to the Kyoto protocol" and "does an admirable job of reflecting research activities in climate science, and is adequately summarized in the technical summary". All this rather points in the other direction: the committee said "yes Kyoto", and one single person on it said "no Kyoto", so Bush agreed with Lindzen so he could do what he wanted to do anyway. This is just my impression.
 * Given the WSJ's poor reputation and the lack of other sources for it, the sentence should go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If the list is correct, then your speculations were incorrect. However, the first two sentences in the Wikipedia-article paragraph do not correctly reflect what Lindzen wrote. He wrote "The NAS panel did not address this question [of a need for Kyoto]", so the Wikipedia article should not say "urging the Bush Administration not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol". And the words "would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming" are positioned to look like a direct quote of the committee's words, when in fact they are Lindzen's words. So, although the Wall Street Journal fits our RS criteria, and although it's okay to quote Lindzen with attribution, removing either or both sentences would slightly improve the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Cato Institute
It looks like Lindzen is no longer with the Cato Institute. Looking at his bio there hes described as a "Former Senior Fellow" and "Richard S. Lindzen was a distinguished senior fellow. " No indication as to when he left though, but nothing published there since 2015. --Salix alba (talk): 11:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Alarmism
"and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism.""

Please explain the difference between this and climate change denialism. Every denialist "criticizes" what he calls "climate alarmism".

Person A calling person B "alarmist" just means that person A considers a specific thing less dangerous than person B does. It is purely relative, it has no objective absolute content. So, "Lindzen criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism"" means that there are people who consider climate change more dangerous than Lindzen, and, wait for it, Lindzen disagrees with them! Duh, astonishing new information which does not at all follow from what is already written above.

Meaningless blather like that has no place in Wikipedia articles. Unless we want Wikipedia to be a propaganda platform for denialism, echoing their clichés. Do we? I do not, and WP:FRINGE doesn't either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also the matter of the weak (primary) sourcing. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richard Lindzen


text:
Severo Ochoa

Severo Ochoa de Albornoz (24 September 1905 – 1 November 1993) was a Spanish physician and biochemist, and winner of the 1959 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine together with Arthur Kornberg for their discovery of "the mechanisms in the biological synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)".

Education and early life
Ochoa was born in Luarca (Asturias), Spain. His father was Severo Manuel Ochoa (who he was named after), a lawyer and businessman, and his mother was Carmen de Albornoz. Ochoa was the nephew of Álvaro de Albornoz (President of the Second Spanish Republic in exile and former Foreign Minister), and a cousin of the poet and critic Aurora de Albornoz. His father died when Ochoa was seven, and he and his mother moved to Málaga, where he attended elementary school through high school. His interest in biology was stimulated by the publications of the Spanish neurologist and Nobel laureate Santiago Ramón y Cajal. In 1923, he went to the University of Madrid Medical School, where he hoped to work with Ramón y Cajal, but Ramón y Cajal retired. He studied with father Pedro Arrupe, and Juan Negrín was his teacher:

"Negrin opened wide, fascinating vistas to my imagination, not only through his lectures and laboratory teaching, but through his advice, encouragement, and stimulation to read scientific monographs and textbooks in languages other than Spanish."

Negrín encouraged Ochoa and another student, José Valdecasas, to isolate creatinine from urine. The two students succeeded and also developed a method to measure small levels of muscle creatinine. Ochoa spent the summer of 1927 at University of Glasgow working with D. Noel Paton on creatine metabolism and improving his English skills. He also refined the assay procedure further and upon returning to Spain he and Valdecasas submitted a paper describing the work to the Journal of Biological Chemistry, where it was rapidly accepted, marking the beginning of Ochoa's biochemistry career.

Ochoa completed his undergraduate medical degree in the summer of 1929 and decide to go abroad again to gain further research experience. His creatine and creatinine work led to an invitation to join Otto Meyerhof's laboratory at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology in Berlin-Dahlem in 1929. At that time the institute was a "hot bed" of the rapidly evolving discipline of biochemistry, and thus Ochoa had the experience of meeting and interacting with scientists such as Otto Heinrich Warburg, Carl Neuberg, Einar Lundsgaard, and Fritz Lipmann in addition to Meyerhof who had received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine less than a decade earlier.

In 1930 Ochoa returned to Madrid to complete research for his MD thesis, which he defended that year. In 1931, a newly minted MD, he married Carmen García Cobián. They did not have any children. He then began postdoctoral study at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, where he worked with Henry Hallett Dale. His London research involved the enzyme glyoxalase and was an important departure in Ochoa's career in two respects. First, the work marked the beginning of Ochoa's lifelong interest in enzymes. Second, the project was at the cutting edge of the rapidly evolving study of intermediary metabolism.

Career and research
In 1933 the Ochoas returned to Madrid where he began to study glycolysis in heart muscle. Within two years, he was offered the directorship of the Physiology Section in a newly created Institute for Medical Research at the University of Madrid Medical School. Unfortunately the appointment was made just as the Spanish Civil War erupted. Ochoa decided that trying to perform research in such an environment would destroy forever his "chances of becoming a scientist." Thus, "after much thought, my wife and I decided to leave Spain." In September 1936 they began what he later called the "wander years" as they traveled from Spain to Germany, to England, and ultimately to the United States within a span of four years.

Ochoa left Spain and returned to Meyerhof's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology now relocated in Heidelberg, where Ochoa found a profoundly changed research focus. During his 1930 visit the laboratory work was "classical physiology," which Ochoa described as "one could see muscles twitching everywhere". By 1936 Meyerhof's laboratory had become one of the world's foremost biochemical facilities focused on processes such as glycolysis and fermentation. Rather than studying muscles "twitch," the lab was now purifying and characterizing the enzymes involved in muscle action and those involved in yeast fermentation. From then until 1938, he held many positions and worked with many people at many places. For example, Otto Meyerhof appointed him Guest Research Assistant at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg for one year. From 1938 until 1941 he was Demonstrator and Nuffield Research Assistant at the University of Oxford.

United States
Ochoa then went to the United States, where he again held many positions at several universities. Between 1940 and 1942, Ochoa worked for Washington University's School of Medicine. In 1942 he was appointed research associate in medicine at the New York University School of Medicine and there subsequently became assistant professor of biochemistry (1945), professor of pharmacology (1946), professor of biochemistry (1954), and chair of the department of biochemistry.

In 1956, he became an American citizen. He was elected to both the United States National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1957. In 1959, Ochoa and Arthur Kornberg were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discovery of the mechanisms in the biological synthesis of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid". He was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1961.

Ochoa continued research on protein synthesis and replication of RNA viruses until 1985, when he returned to now democratic Spain where he was a science advisor. Ochoa was also a recipient of U.S. National Medal of Science in 1978.

Severo Ochoa died in Madrid, Spain on 1 November 1993. Carmen García Cobián had died in 1986.

Long after his death, Spanish actress Sara Montiel claimed that she and Severo Ochoa were involved in a romantic relationship in the 1950s, as stated in an interview in Spanish newspaper El País: "The great love of my life was Severo Ochoa. But it was an impossible love. Clandestine. He was married, and besides, him doing research and me doing films wasn't a good match."

Legacy
A new research center in the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM), that was planned in the 1970s, was finally open in 1975 (CBM) and named, after his dead, the Centro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa.

In Leganés, Madrid, a hospital bears his name, as does the Madrid Metro station serving it, Hospital Severo Ochoa.

The asteroid 117435 Severochoa is also named in his honor.

In 2003 the Spanish General Post Office (Correos) issued a €0,76 postage stamp honoring Ochoa, as one of a pair featuring Spanish medical Nobel Prize winners alongside Santiago Ramón y Cajal.

In June 2011, the United States Postal Service issued a stamp honoring him, as part of the American Scientists collection, along with Melvin Calvin, Asa Gray, and Maria Goeppert-Mayer. This was the third volume in the series.

The main road in to the tourist resort Benidorm is named Avenida Dr. Severo Ochoa in his honor.

title: Severo Ochoa


text:
Hydrogen carrier

A hydrogen carrier is an organic macromolecule that transports atoms of hydrogen from one place to another inside a cell or from cell to cell for use in various metabolical processes. Examples include NADPH, NADH, and FADH. The main role of these is to transport hydrogen atom to electron transport chain which will change ADP to ATP by adding one phosphate during metabolic processes (e.g. photosynthesis and respiration). Hydrogen carrier participates in an oxidation-reduction reaction by getting reduced due to the acceptance of a Hydrogen. The enzyme used in Glycolysis, Dehydrogenase is used to attach the hydrogen to one of the hydrogen carrier.

title: Hydrogen carrier