Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand it does get at least some hits. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea ding-newsweek-op-ed/
As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them hard to counter without getting into a more detailed discussions than most non-scientists will read (or even appreciate the significance of). The alternative form of response of trying to compare credibilities (pitching greater credibility of IPCC or leading scientists, saying he takes money from industry, etc.) runs into arguments he has supporting his credibility, namely being at MIT and an NAS member, etc. and being a put upon victim of the scientific establishment. And pushing for investigative reporter articles requires them really getting into details, often beyond the level of scientific expertise they want to get into. Basically, to his credit (and unlike other Skeptics), Lindzen at least some times offers alternative testable scientific explanations, sometimes with claims of observations support, rather than just making wild assertions (e.g., his high cloud explanation which took a good bit of scientific work to get into; my view of the key problem was his rather hidden assumption, in interpreting the satellite data, that the world is composed of unconnected 1-D vertical models and horizontal circulations make no difference in local conditions). Ideally, he and his students would test his hypotheses (e.g., that higher surface temperatures lead to such strong convection that they dry the upper troposphere, in terms of absolute rather than relative humidity) by trying to formulate them for inclusion in a model and seeing if they work or don't in detailed models of the world. He often rather cavalierly leaves that to others, and when other scientists have taken that on they have found that his hypotheses just don't work out (e.g., to explain how orbital element variations can lead to glacial cycling if the climate sensitivity is low, he has argued that relatively evenly spread forcings like CO2 have a small sensitivity, but spatially distributed ones like orbital elements generate a large response---plausible hypothesis, but then one would expect that the present sulfate aerosol loading that is similarly hemispherically and seasonally contrasting should have a really large response compared to the CO2 response, and we don't see that--in observations or models). It seems to me the really credible scientists capable of responding effectively are those who have done these tests (a number of them being in the GISS group), but it does require the scientists and the listeners to devote a good deal of attention to detailed aspects of the science--and there are just too many out there who won't listen to what they don't want to hear. So, in many cases, it just seems much more productive for scientists to go off and do good new science and leave Lindzen as an unfortunate side-show while those who want to believe in his comments invite him to all sorts of visible forums. Looking at Lindzen's latest presentation in the UK, virtually all of his slides would need to be commented on--starting with his statement that "climate is always changing." Well, yes and no, he gives no bounds here, no indication about how much change, and so on and on and on. Nice catch phrases, and scientific responses would take many more words than he puts on his slides. So, with a response, it is a lot more detail than a generalist might really want to get into, and without a response, the event appears as a prominent addition to his list of eminent groups he was invited to speak to. Quite a challenge to overcome to broaden the appreciation of the very difficult climate situation we are in. Mike MacCracken On 3/1/12 11:25 AM, "david" <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding Robert Socolow's idea that Lindzen's case may need more > adequate refutation: > > Richard Kerr published an article in Science in 1989 describing > Lindzen's argument and his place in climate debate entitled: > "Greenhouse skeptic out in cold". The article describes Lindzen in > the way some still do, i.e. "no other US skeptic has such scientific > stature". Lindzen cast doubt on climate science: "the research has > hardly begun". Kerr quoted Lindzen assessing what was known: "both > the data and our scientific understanding do not support the level of > concern". > > Kerr described what Lindzen said was the foundation of his case in > 1989: "what Lindzen has now is not so much a complete model as an idea > about how control of atmospheric temperature works. Indeed, he > describes it himself as an idea of a theological or philosophical > nature". > > Now Robert Socolow suggests there may be something lacking, i.e. some > "absence of a direct refutation" of the Lindzen analysis. I wonder. > Its theology. He's got acolytes. What are mere scientists supposed > to do? Kerr quotes Mahlman who directly refuted Lindzen's idea > in1989: "I know of no observational evidence supporting it". Kerr > also quoted Schneider: "Does he have a calculation, or is his brain > better than our models?" How many nails have to be driven in? > Mahlman again: "Lindzen is a smart person, but I'm afraid he's > confused" > > What has changed about Lindzen, his position, or about how climate > scientists view his arguments, since 1989? Decade after decade, > Lindzen has failed to support his arguments with data in a way that > would convince other scientists, yet decade after decade, the general > public is informed by enough opinion leaders that they should take > Lindzen's opinion as credible that many still do. Refuting him is > still necessary, but the fact that many pay attention to him has > nothing to do with how convincing his case is. > > Hansen published a story of a time he shared a cab with Lindzen after > both had testified to a White House Climate Task Force, in his book > "Storms of My Grandchildren", pages 15-16. Hansen: "I considered > asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between > smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies > decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical > connections between smoking and health problems". Hansen didn't ask > that question during that cab ride, but he says he did ask Lindzen > later, at a conference both were attending: "He began rattling off > all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, > which was closely analogous with his views of climate data". > > Kerr's article, "Greenhouse skeptic out in cold." was published in > Science 246.4934 (1989): 1118+ > > > >> On Mar 1, 4:01 am, "Robert H. Socolow" <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> -- 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.
