There is a problem of language here. I am a 'climate skeptic'.
A 'skeptic' is defined as someone who is inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. All good scientists should be skeptics. --- What we have here is denialism, not skeptiicism. I suggest that Lindzen's problem is a failure to adequate doubt or question opinions that he has accepted. The problem is that Lindzen is not enough of a skeptic. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/ On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Gordon <[email protected]>wrote: > 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<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CCwQFjA%0ABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02148%2FRSL%0A-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf&ei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQ&usg=AFQjCNH019U0I4028%0Ax7SEHStI22GvYkZIg&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. > > -- 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.
