Might it not be fair to expect the public to reject Dick Lindzen's testimony, in the absence of a direct refutation of his analysis? Is it really enough to assert that he has been wrong before?
Lindzen starts from sea surface temperatures and satellite measurements of radiation and infers that negative feedback dominates the climate system. Surely someone in this google group can provide the rest of us with a careful explanation of where his reasoning is problematic -- or can lead us to a paper which does thIs. Rob From: Douglas Spence [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:43 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons It could be a simpler force at work. I think the comparison with the fact that smoking causes cancer is helpful. If you speak to 2 doctors, and one of them says: "Smoking is good for you, keep on doing it, don't worry about anything." vs "Smoking gives you cancer. It might kill you. We know it's difficult, but you need to quit right now." Who do you want to believe? Which "expert" will you listen to? (most people are only intellectually/academically equipped to go with the expert opinion they prefer and seldom question the incentives at work behind the scenes, though this could be a genuine disagreement of opinion also). The precautionary principle says there is no good reason to ever have started smoking in the first place. The effects of doing so were unknown, the activity was of questionable value - therefore why take the risk (individually or collectively). I suspect with smoking the public mood probably only started to change at the point at which enough people died of cancer or developed related illnesses (which again in this case usually takes time, and once those are developed it's a lot harder to act) that it became obvious which of the two experts was correct. Trouble is, I think this illustrates another important point. Now we know smoking causes cancer and other long term unpleasant effects sufficiently great not to justify the relatively small benefits of doing so. Lots of people still smoke! Whether it's because they don't care, it's too remote a prospect to worry about and they'll confront the hard task of quitting "later" or because they think they're exempt from statistics - it doesn't really matter, the bottom line is - that despite widespread public perception and general knowledge telling people smoking is bad, large numbers of people continue to smoke anyway. Societies generally still facilitate this behaviour. Any reason you'd expect these issues to follow a different sort of progression? (if not worse - the effects of smoking are largely individual, and the effects of these issues are collective - making it an "everyone" problem instead of "my problem") On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Marty Hoffert <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It's not just Hansen versus Lindzen. Lindzen has been refuted countless time in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (see, e.g., the attached works by yours truly with Curt Covey). The real problem is scientific illiteracy of folks in policy making position to assess these arguments. So long as climate/energy policy is assessed by lawyers, trained to mobilize information as advocates of a predetermined point of view, and economists, a profession, in the view of John Kenneth Galbraith, having more in common with astrology than physical science, we are deep trouble. Scientists cannot afford to accept arguments from authority. For a given set of data, and a given hypothesis like human-created climate change we have to re-invent the logic in our own minds, or it is simply not credible. Marty Hoffert On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Robert Chris wrote: > 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=0CCwQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02148%2FRSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf&ei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQ&usg=AFQjCNH019U0I4028x7SEHStI22GvYkZIg&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]<mailto:[email protected]>. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[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.
