Why Do Global Warmers Deny That Richard Lindzen thinks human contributes very little to warming?

Question

see http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-2.html

Answer 1

Read your own article:

"At the moment, Lindzen is pursuing a theory that says increased amounts of water vapor—from warming surface temperatures—will reduce heat-trapping high-cirrus clouds, which will help balance the planet's temperature."

Lindzen doesn't deny that man is a major source of global warming. The overwhelming data supporting that makes denying it untenable (which is why George Bush dropped it, too). He just thinks negative feedbacks from clouds will save us. Few scientists agree.

Note that exactly the right kind of clouds must change in exactly the right way, since some clouds serve more to hold heat in and some more to block sunlight. Which is one reason why few agree with him.

EDIT - Ron C - Most scientists think positive feedbacks (reflective ice melts, exposing darker water or land) will dominate. The Arctic ice seems to support them.

"Scientists 'stunned' by Arctic ice behaviour"

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3b949429-a1ad-4b53-849f-3b799f74d8a3&k=441

Answer 2

Global warmers have not yet bought into Lindzen's theory about the "infrared iris." And perhaps they never will. After all, if Lindzen is right and global warming is not going to be catastrophic, there is no reason to continue spending billions of dollars studying global warming.

However, the science appears to be on Lindzen's side. Roy Spencer recently published an article in Geophysical Research Letters regarding a negative feedback he observed over the tropics. Spencer writes: "The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen’s ‘'infrared iris'’ hypothesis of climate stabilization." See http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

No doubt scientists will want to see more proof from Spencer and will probably try to reproduce his findings. And they should. That is how science is done. It will take time for scientists to become convinced. Some will and some will not. Some will be too motivated by money to ever admit the truth.
---------
Bob, I am well aware of the proposed positive feedbacks. All of the models reflect the positive feedbacks and so does Lindzen's and Schwartz's climate sensitivity estimates. The models do not reflect the negative feedback observed by Spencer.

Answer 3

Lindzen doesn't "think humans contribute little to warming", he thinks that negative feedback effects will prevent anthropogenic global warming from becoming too serious a problem.

He may be right. In fact, I hope so. But at present, his ideas are definitely in the minority among climate scientists, most of whom agree that seriously bad positive feedback effects are possible.

Are you really willing to risk the entire world on the possibility that natural processes will save us?

Answer 4

"Are Cons dissatisfied that Mitt Romney stated that he thinks people make contributions to worldwide warming?" Oh yeah. we are crying our eyes out over our cherished chief asserting those issues /roll eyes Nop we are actually not dissatisfied because of the fact Romney isn't a "con" and in no way has been. we're not greater dissatisfied approximately this than as quickly as we hear Al Gore say it. "Cons - Romney is your maximum valuable candidate. in case you run with a staunch Conservative, you will assure a defeat for the GOP." Yeah precise. as though youve have been given not something however the excellent hobbies of the GOP at coronary heart. thank you for the comparable suggestion you gave us approximately McCain.

Answer 5

oh, i don't know

maybe his own statements

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

the guy is skeptical of catastrophic effects of warming - not warming itself - i know he isn't a biologist, but i find his mosquito(malaria) comments in this article a little ignorant for a PhD.

If you thought lindzen didn't believe in enhanced greenhouse theory because you watched "the great global warming swindle" that is because TGGWS was a cut and paste propaganda film.

Answer 6

easy, we DO contribute greatly to Global Warming

Answer 7

Interesting that you base science on who believes what and how many believe rather than on objective facts.

This provides more proof that objective science is dead, and it is now based on the subjective opinions of sooth sayers and mystics.