The response is very clear. Lindzen has his view, Hansen has his view (I happen to go along with Lindzen) but the science is not well established and it is early times. However, the earth is warming and has been for 10,000 years without benefit of CO2 increase, and based on past history will continue to warm until it gets to a global average close to 25 C. That is not tolerable, not even a few degrees more, so in time we will want to have a well tested and certain means to control/limit the increase. That is where Geoengineering comes to the rescue. The rest of the story is obvious. We must support Geoengineering research.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:01 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof Lindzen, who has featured here before, gave a presentation to a group at the UK House of Commons last week in a bid to repeal the UK Climate Act which obliges successive UK governments to limit UK carbon emissions. The presentation can be seen here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CCwQFjA BOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02148%2FRSL -HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf&ei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQ&usg=AFQjCNH019U0I4028 x7SEHStI22GvYkZIg&sig2=7DUiD5yixLzYZYfJMtvS0w and if you Google - Lindzen "house of commons" - you'll come up with a lot more comments from the skeptic community. (See also http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case for an equally professional skeptic appeal.) As a social scientist and not able to make informed judgements about what purports, at least, to be informed evidence- based climate science. I cannot imagine that the majority of policymakers will find it any easier than I do. If there is any substance to Lindzen's claims should others not be recognising it and reflecting it in their work? If there is no substance to it, shouldn't others be openly refuting his claims by explaining in detail why either his facts are wrong or his argument is invalid? The skeptics don't have to win this argument they just have to sow sufficient doubt to engender indecision, something which some might think is easily achieved with most politicians and even more so when the proposed actions are so far reaching as those implied by decarbonising the global economy or geoengineering. The downward trend in interest in climate change amongst the lay public suggests that the skeptics are winning the political argument. What is to be the response? Robert Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
