Eugene: 1. Apologies for using the term "denier" on this list - probably should not have. But in this case I am still torn on the appropriate label. I'd like your opinion in this specific case.
2. My defense is that I have recently tried to read more of Dr. Lindzen's material and found that he so defines himself with that label Proof 1 (obtained by googling) : At motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/fred-singer-and-skeptics-vs-deniers.html the author says "Richard Lindzen likes to call himself a proud denier, too. I surely see his point. " Proof 2 www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/11/21/the-rise-and-fall-of-climate-change-denial/ author: " Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT says he prefers the term denier to skeptic. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic.” 3. I am sure there are many more such possible quotes and self-quotes (I had a different one, that I can't find.) But, nevertheless, maybe I shouldn't have used his own label. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Gordon" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:52:37 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons It is a sick use of the term to characterize someone who disagrees with the magnitude and urgency of the situation as a denier. That is equivalent to saying, I am right, I know best and anyone with a different view is denying my superior wisdom. That is a head shaker, From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:43 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? ( or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi ) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike MacCracken" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] , "Geoengineering" < [email protected] > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons 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 <long snip - including two earlier> -- 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.
