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
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
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
Thank you; models may help to explain the issues but not the science. Only
when you do an experiment for which you have predicted the results and the
predictions hold true and you do it enough times so that you have no doubt
achieved truth do you have a credible science. Until then it is
*I am sending this on behalf of Tom Wigley, who for some reason was unable
to post. I will take this opportunity to say that I do think Eugene
Gordon's comments shows a misconception of what science is about. When we
use Newton's or Einstein's laws of motions to explain planetary orbits, we
are
