Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

~QT~™ asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Is Richard Lindzen intellectually dishonest?

Dessler (2010) quantified the cloud feedback by relating changes in outgoing radiation to surface temperature anomalies (at zero time lag). He concluded that clouds trap additional energy as the surface warms.

Roy Spencer has objected to this study’s main conclusion. Contrary to Dessler's beliefs, Spencer suggests that variations in cloud-cover caused significant temperature changes over the last decade. Thus, Spencer believes that Dessler should perform his feedback parameter diagnosis at some time lag between the radiative flux and temperature data.

Richard Lindzen recently expressed support for Spencer’s theory and suggested that Dessler should take time lags into account.

I find this rather bizarre. Lindzen and Choi (2009) only addressed ZERO-time lag relationships, which is essentially what Dessler did. Thus, if clouds caused significant temperature variations between 2000 and 2010, Lindzen’s previous conclusions would be erroneous.

Why would Lindzen support a theory that is contradictory to his own? Does this confirm that he is intellectually dishonest? Furthermore, are there any skeptical scientists that Lindzen does not approve of?


@ Moe

The Earth has currently warmed .8º C, as Dana notes. If carbon dioxide concentrations were held constant at today's levels, we could expect another .6º C of warming due to the climate system's thermal inertia. In this hypothetical scenario, the Earth's equilibrium temperature would be 1.4º C higher than during preindustrial times. Therefore, ABOUT half of the total warming is "in the pipeline".

Dana's claim is not intellectually dishonest.

5 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes. I detailed another example of Lindzen's intellectual dishonesty here:

    I suspect Lindzen enjoys the attention that comes from being "controversial". He constantly makes misleading statements, attends denialist conferences, signs onto denialist reports and letters to policymakers:

    He's a very smart guy, but constantly makes and supports statements which any good climate scientist should know are wrong. That makes him intellectually dishonest, without a question.

  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    "It's true that the consequences of anthropogenic climate change so far have been manageable. It's also true that global surface air temperatures have only increased about 0.8°C over the past century. On a century timescale, this is actually quite a large and rapid warming, and let's not forget that based on the greenhouse gases we've emitted to this point, we've already committed the planet to an additional 0.6°C warming, nearly twice as much as the "modest warming" thus far.

    But we're not particularly concerned about current temperatures or the current climate. In fact, if we could maintain the climate and average global temperature at today's levels, everybody would be thrilled. The consequences of climate change so far have probably been more bad than good, but compared to the warming and climate change to come, our current temperatures and climate are quite manageable."

    Precisely what are we doing to manage this "large and rapid warming"? How much more is 0.6°C than 0.8°C, is it really twice as much, I realize nearly twice as much as the "modest warming" thus far may be something to raise an eyebrow, but I find it more than intellectually dishonest to claim 0.6°C is nearly twice as much as 0.8°C? Not concerned with curent "changes", if maintained at current levels would be thrilled, but probably more bad than good, but manageable? Yup intellectual honesty at work here?

  • 1 decade ago

    Lindzen seems to be of the, once common now rare, category of scientific contrarian whose skepticism is mainly based not on intellectual questioning, nor on a desire to argue for "more research needed," but on personal objections to the implications of the scientific consensus. His apparent modus operandi is outlined reasonably well by Dana in his answer here.

  • mikey
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I have found that most people who are self proclaimed "experts" in the field of climatology are intellectually dishonest, why should he be any different?

    Source(s): old doc
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    yes he is ..

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.