I am not sure Lindzen is a denier. He simply has his own preferred lower value (compared to Hansen) for the warming in degrees produced by defined increases in CO2 concentration. That is hardly being a denier. Nor do I see myself as a denier. However, I don't have an opinion about the ratio other that when the truth is known I suspect Lindzen will be closer than Hansen. All the factors contributing to warming have not yet been determined or quantified and it is amazing to me that people have strong opinions about that ratio.
As a successful engineer and scientist with many important projects under my belt I have always practiced contingency planning when one deals with uncertainty. I see geoengineering as an important form of contingency planning. You guys are doing great given the limiting funding available. -----Original Message----- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of david Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:37 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons 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 <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> 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://w ww.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-b... > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 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%2F021 > > 48%2FRS L > > > -HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf&ei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQ&usg=AFQjCNH01 > > 9U0I402 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
