I agree with Lauren Quinn, and I urge David Thomson to write an op-ed response to Lindzen.
Sincerely, Val H. Smith Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas >Approved-By: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Originating-IP: [24.180.55.49] >X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2006 15:52:12.0625 (UTC) > FILETIME=[D2237C10:01C69ACA] >Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:52:08 +0000 >Reply-To: L Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" ><ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >From: L Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal op-ed on "An Inconvenient Truth" >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >List-Help: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L>, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ECOLOG-L> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Archive: <http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ECOLOG-L> >X-Bayes-Prob: 0.5000 (Score 0) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 3.80] >X-CanItPRO-Stream: default >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 69457653 - c0b9cb4edba0 >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 129.237.35.132 > >Dave, have you considered turning this into an op-ed of your own to >be submitted to the WSJ in response to Lindzen's piece? While you're >not an atmospheric scientist, your points are valid and should be >considered by those WSJ readers who were convinced by Dr. Lindzen's arguments. >Thank you. >Lauren Quinn > >----Original Message Follows---- >From: Dave Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Dave Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal op-ed on "An Inconvenient Truth" >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:56:50 -0700 > >Dan, > >Disclosure: I am not an atmospheric scientist. My work has occasionally >relied upon the atmospheric sciences, so I my professional interests >have supplemented my personal interest in this topic. > >Dr. Lindzen's CV is quite impressive: >http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm (Take a look through his >"other publications" for more commentaries.) Naturally I do not feel up >to the challenge of debating him on this issue. However there are some >statements in his piece that are perhaps as distorted as (how he viewed) >the movie he aimed to critique. Let me just offer a few points that >cause me to question the critique in general. > >Dr. Lindzen entitled his commentary "There Is No 'Consensus' On Global >Warming". I find that odd given the recent statements by the National >Academy and also (surprisingly) President Bush's own science panel on >the subject. Perhaps Dr. Lindzen is referring to a difference of >opinion on the minutiae of global warming, but those are hardly the >stuff of popular movies eh? I noted that he quotes the National >Academy's own statements in this paragraph: > > >"In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief >(15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again >enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was >preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes >observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human >activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these >changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was >sufficient for CNN's >Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a >"unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is >due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no." > > >I believe this is the statement he was referring to, in context: >http://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1 > > >"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of >human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean >temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes >observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human >activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these >changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced >warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through >the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model >simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in >rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to >drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on >the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs." > > >I note that Dr. Lindzen curiously omitted the strong statement that >begins the National Academy's paragraph, as well as the very informative >discussion that follows the sentence he quoted - to the benefit of his >thesis. If I were at the National Academy I would be disappointed by >his characterization of their statement. In fact my read of Dr. >Linzden's piece was so disappointing that I couldn't bring myself to >focus on it as well as the topic deserves... but let me offer one more >piece of evidence in my defense. Dr. Lindzen on several occasions >dismisses statements on the relationship of hurricanes to global >warming. Most notably in the following paragraph: > > >"Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't >attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there >is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric >Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming >because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, >based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, >such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, >are hardly compelling." > > >This statement strangely ignores research coming from an atmospheric >scientist at the same university (perhaps their offices are side by >side?): > >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/hurricanes.html >http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html > >What is most interesting to me about Emanuel and Mann's 2006 findings is >that they are based upon the analysis of actual observations, not the >hotly contested models. They even note that the variability was not >attributable to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to which Dr. >Lindzen refers. > >Let me just conclude by somewhat randomly quoting the National Academy, >again from their most recent news release (June 22, 2006): >http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676 > > >"The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for >periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric >greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of >evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in >response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence." > > >Based upon my exposure to the world of climate change science I find Dr. >Lindzen's commentary surprisingly lacking given his CV. Perhaps I have >mischaracterized Dr. Lindzen's piece? > >David Thomson > >PS - here is a reasonable critique of Gore's movie: >http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0608/p14s02-sten.html >Does Gore overheat global warming? >By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Gruner >Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:22 PM >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >Subject: Wall Street Journal op-ed on "An Inconvenient Truth" > >Ecologgers: > >please see this op-ed on the WSJ. > > > > URL for this article: >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115127582141890238.html > >June 26, 2006 >[] > >COMMENTARY > >There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming >By RICHARD S. LINDZEN >June 26, 2006; Page A14 > >According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient >Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": >melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, >more and stronger hurricanes and invasions of >tropical disease, among other cataclysms -- >unless we change the way we live now. > >Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for >Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current >weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were >right about global warming, and we are all >suffering the consequences of President Bush's >obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore >assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over." > >That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an >interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, >ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What >exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring >to? Is there really a scientific community that >is debating all these issues and then somehow >agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being >over, it has never been clear to me what this >"debate" actually is in the first place. > >The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek >featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was >claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically >thereafter it was revealed that although there >had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all >scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore >qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes >after he made it, clarifying things in an >important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted >Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of >rising sea levels are far less dire than he >suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his >claims by noting that scientists "don't have any >models that give them a high level of confidence" >one way or the other and went on to claim -- in >his defense -- that scientists "don't know... They just don't know." > >So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to >the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, >whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. >Gore's preferred global-warming template -- >namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires >that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To >take the issue of rising sea levels, these >include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in >1940; that icebergs have been known since time >immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests >that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing >on average. A likely result of all this is >increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal >perimeter of that country, which is depicted so >ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of >factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming. > >They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have >been retreating since the early 19th century, and >were advancing for several centuries before that. >Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have >stopped retreating and some are now advancing >again. And, frankly, we don't know why. > > >* * * > >The other elements of the global-warming scare >scenario are predicated on similar oversights. >Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was >once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains >common in Siberia -- mosquitoes don't require >tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on >multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature >is likely to be an important factor. This >temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time >scales. However, questions concerning the origin >of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the >nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being >hotly argued within the profession. > >Even among those arguing, there is general >agreement that we can't attribute any particular >hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is >one exception, Greg Holland of the National >Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, >Colo., who argues that it must be global warming >because he can't think of anything else. While >arguments like these, based on lassitude, are >becoming rather common in climate assessments, >such claims, given the primitive state of weather >and climate science, are hardly compelling. > >A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach >is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth >and its climate are dynamic; they are always >changing even without any external forcing. To >treat all change as something to fear is bad >enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is >much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly >not issues over which debate is ended -- at least >not in terms of the actual science. > >A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is >provided by the environmental journalist Gregg >Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific >community now agrees that significant warming is >occurring, and that there is clear evidence of >human influences on the climate system. This is >still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it >has never been widely contested. Most of the >climate community has agreed since 1988 that >global mean temperatures have increased on the >order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past >century, having risen significantly from about >1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the >early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and >remaining essentially flat since 1998. > >There is also little disagreement that levels of >carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from >about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in >the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. >Finally, there has been no question whatsoever >that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber >(i.e., a greenhouse gas -- albeit a minor one), >and its increase should theoretically contribute >to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, >the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to >somewhat more warming than has been observed, >assuming that the small observed increase was in >fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than >a natural fluctuation in the climate system. >Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, >there has been an intense effort to claim that >the theoretically expected contribution from >additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. > >Given that we do not understand the natural >internal variability of climate change, this task >is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has >been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, >and with surprising impact. Thus, although the >conflicted state of the affair was accurately >presented in the 1996 text of the >Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), >the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported >ambiguously that "The balance of evidence >suggests a discernible human influence on global >climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto. > >The next IPCC report again described the problems >surrounding what has become known as the >attribution issue: that is, to explain what >mechanisms are responsible for observed changes >in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument >-- e.g., we can't think of an alternative -- to >support human attribution. But the "summary for >policy makers" claimed in a manner largely >unrelated to the actual text of the report that >"In the light of new evidence and taking into >account the remaining uncertainties, most of the >observed warming over the last 50 years is likely >to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." > >In a similar vein, the National Academy of >Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report >responding to questions from the White House. It >again enumerated the difficulties with >attribution, but again the report was preceded by >a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The >changes observed over the last several decades >are likely mostly due to human activities, but we >cannot rule out that some significant part of >these changes is also a reflection of natural >variability." This was sufficient for CNN's >Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the >report represented a "unanimous decision that >global warming is real, is getting worse and is >due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no. > >More recently, a study in the journal Science by >the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a >search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for >the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words >"global climate change" produced 928 articles, >all of whose abstracts supported what she >referred to as the consensus view. A British >social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her >procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 >articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 >of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the >so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it. > >Even more recently, the Climate Change Science >Program, the Bush administration's coordinating >agency for global-warming research, declared it >had found "clear evidence of human influences on >the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, >meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this >evidence? The models imply that greenhouse >warming should impact atmospheric temperatures >more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite >data showed no warming in the atmosphere since >1979. The report showed that selective >corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to >some warming, thus reducing the conflict between >observations and models descriptions of what >greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, >means the case is still very much open. > > >* * * > >So what, then, is one to make of this alleged >debate? I would suggest at least three points. > >First, nonscientists generally do not want to >bother with understanding the science. Claims of >consensus relieve policy types, environmental >advocates and politicians of any need to do so. >Such claims also serve to intimidate the public >and even scientists -- especially those outside >the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given >that the question of human attribution largely >cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions >of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a >bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious >beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a >political issue but a "moral" crusade. > >Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish >truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual >repetition. An earlier attempt at this was >accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. >This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky. > >Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at >MIT. > URL for this article: >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115127582141890238.html Val H. Smith Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-4565 FAX: 785-864-5321 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
