Lindzen has asserted he does not like being called a "skeptic" because he prefers that people call him a "denier". Eg: when he was interviewed on BBC's "One Planet" October 3 2010. A recording is available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009yfwl
Here is a transcript of the portion of the show where this topic came up: BBC interviewer Michael Williams: "Professor, I described you a little earlier as a 'climate skeptic', a shorthand for which I hope you will forgive me, I'm sure you don't doubt the existence of the climate itself.... Lindzen: "Well you know I also don't like that word particularly. Williams: "So what should I use?" Lindzen: "Well, its a good question. Let me explain why I don't like it. You know to be skeptical assumes there is a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think we're dealing with a situation where there's not a strong presumptive case." [...they drift off into discussion of another topic then return to this issue] Williams: "OK, you don't like the word 'skeptic'. Do you have a suggestion? I've read a couple of suggestions. 'Denier' is apparently unacceptable...." Lindzen: "Yeah well, I actually like 'denier'. That's closer than 'skeptic'...." On Feb 28, 8:23 am, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-cho...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzen...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-b... > > 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=0... > > > BOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02148%2FRS > > L > > > -HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf&ei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQ&usg=AFQjCNH019U0I402 > > 8 > > x7SEHStI22GvYkZIg&sig2=7DUiD5yixLzYZYfJMtvS0w<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0...> > > > and if you Google - Lindzen "house of commons" - you'll come up with a lot > > more comments from the skeptic community. > > > (See alsohttp://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Casefor 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.
