Talk:Richard Lindzen

CNN quotation

"You have these news events where people are taken to Glacier National Park or to Alaska, and they are shown a glacier that has been retreating," says Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The assumption is it's global warming.

"But then you look at the markers and you see that the retreat began around 1820. That's not due to global warming, at least not from man." http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/hot.air/

Ed Poor

---

Reduction of career

Poor RL. His entire career reduced to greenhouse skepticism... (William M. Connolley 22:51 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC))

---

Frankly, I will remember him as the distinguished professor who developed the Earth Adaptive Iris theory. which will at the end of the day, become a milestone in attribution of climate change while others waste their time in Antarctica melting ice.

---

There is evidence against Iris Hypothesis. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris2.html.

Most scientists?

Revert comment re his views disagreeing: this is undisputed factual information and there was no reason to remove it. (William M. Connolley 16:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC))

(SEWilco 06:54, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)) "Most scientists" is opinion, not factual.

This leaves "his views diverge from those who believe otherwise".

Tautology removed.

This leaves the factual "He frequently speaks out against the global warming theory."

Stop playing silly word games. William M. Connolley 16:55, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC))

---

Lindzen considers himself embattled

To SEWilco: If you had read anything Lindzen has written other than sound bites extracted for use in cranks' web pages, you would know that he considers himself an embattled figure within his own profession. He wouldn't be paraded about by "greenhouse sceptics", if he wasn't the only good meteorologist they could find. (Anon)

(cutting in) This is precisely correct: he *is* embattled and he *is* the only figure of any stature that the skeptics have. Which is precisely why saying "his views diverge from most other climate scientists" is correct ((William M. Connolley 16:55, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)).

I have known his work for about 30 years, though I don't know him personally. He has had a brilliant career, and his work on non-climate related subjects, such as atmospheric tides, is very highly regarded. But science isn't run on the guru system, and he simply cannot convince his colleagues about his climate ideas. (Just try to find a paper supporting his climate ideas in the scientific literature.) As William (a climate researcher of good reputation himself) pointed out, it's a pity to see a great scientist reduced to a one-trick pony in the popular press. BTW, he doesn't seem to think much of other "global warming sceptics". He never mentions their work in his writings, and he avoids contact with them. He wants approval from his peers, not "sceptics." (Anon)

Lindzen's Wall Street Journal op ed of July 19, 2006 mentions (adversely) the work of social scientist Naomi Oreskes of University of San Diego (correction: UC San Diego, not University of San Diego) and (favorably) the countervailing work of social scientist Benny Peiser of Moore University of Liverpool. He also mentions commentary of climate scientist Greg Holland. Joe 17:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 23 July 2006

If Lindzen agrees he is not mainstream, accept that

If Lindzen agrees that he is non-mainstream, then we're done. Michael Behe, to pick another controversial scientist, does, so I'd expect he would too. Martin 23:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Testimony reference

I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field. [1]

Lindzen thinks he is mainsteam SEWilco 22:17, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:11, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)) Very good. But inconsistent with "Lindzen considers himself embattled"... if he is only saying what the mainstream/majority says, why is he embattled? The asnwer, of course, is that he *isnt* saying what the mainstream is saying.

The quote has Lindzen saying that mainstream/skeptic language is unhelpful and confusing, which is quite different from Lindzen saying that he is mainstream. Martin 13:52, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The language issue is the subject. The end, from the last mention of skeptics, says they are mainstream. SEWilco 05:13, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

He could be "emabattled" because he is discriminating against when applying for funding. His ideas could still be mainstream thought.

Lindzen testimony with visuals

Talking of which, can someone find a version of Lindzen's evidence that:

1. includes both the visuals (preferably appropriately marked as such)
2. doesn't include extraneous editorial markup?

Martin 16:53, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

naming conventions

According to wikipedia:naming conventions, this should be at Richard Lindzen... Martin 22:51, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Divergence of views

his views diverge from those of most atmospheric scientists.

Please provide a reference cataloguing the views of "most atmospheric scientists" -- otherwise, I have to conclude that Anonymous is just GUESSING that most atmospheric scientists' views are divergent from Lindzen's.

As I recall, one of the hottest points in the whole global warming controversy is whether or not there is a "scientific consensus" on the global warming hypothesis. Democrats, like Al Gore, said that "the science is settled" -- but the only polls I've heard about indicate otherwise.

Please provide evidence that someone, somewhere -- aside from the WikiCommunity -- agrees with your POV, and we can put the statement back in: Mr. X of organization Y says Z. Otherwise, it's probably better to omit it. Ed Poor

---

Kindly refer to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,823343.story

Quoting the author, Naomi Oreskes [History of Science professor at UC San Diego]:

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

And again:

In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions — global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it — have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide. Even the Bush administration accepts the fundamental findings. As President Bush's science advisor, John Marburger III, said last year in a speech: "The climate is changing; the Earth is warming."

"Not disputing" doesn't mean "agreeing". Editorials and Op-Ed writings are not any more reliable than are decisions by government panels. One would do well to take it all with a grain of salt. Sln3412 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is virtually no disagreement that both the Earth is getting warmer, and that there is more CO2 and methane is in the atmosphere. There is not really any disagreement as to that humans affect the environment. There is not really any disagreement that we should do "something" about all of it. There is disagreement as to what should be done, how much should be spent, and the specifics of how much what influences what else. Climate science, or more specifically politically charged climate science policy decisions, are not really any different than any other politically charged subject or policy debate. Or any different than anything else involving money, or direction, or funding, or world-view based upon opinion or culture or....

There is disagreement as to exactly what scientists think, but less as to what they say; which is in general qualified but usually benign and neutral statements. There is also disagreement as to the focus, agenda and views of publications such as Science and Nature. In addition, there is disagreement on the policy and position of organizations such as the IPCC, variations of such involving the difference between policy summary sections and the reports themselves. Lastly, the nature and rhetoric of the press in general has also been called into question. While these are all as they are, and don't mean anything in and of themselves. The disagreements don't really speak to what a consensus (or lack thereof) or anything else really is in reality, other than as a battle between conflicting ideologies.

This seems more about sociology than about science. Lindzen summed it up pretty well I think when he wrote: "Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us. " --Sln3412 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Currents of thought

Maybe what we should do then, is take another step back from it all. Rather than try to "settle" the issue of who's right and who's wring, I suggest we DESCRIBE the views of any major advocates or other sources we can locate. Professor Lindzen's name keeps popping up, so I consider him "major" enough for an article.

As to whether his views are "mainstream" or not, without a reliable survey of scientists' views, I don't see how we can say who or what is mainstream. So how can we say that someone is or is not part of the mainstream?

Even in a topic like evolution, where surveys clearly show where people are at -- biologists virtually all take a Darwinist stance; while only about 1 out of 10 US laymen do -- it's not really clear what the "mainstream" view is. Public schools tend to take the biologists' side, even though Creationists and other evolution skeptics are an 85% to 90% majority. Maybe there isn't any MAIN stream at all, but two strong currents fighting each other, eh?

In conclusion, I think the Wikipedia should be very careful about identifying any view as "mainstream" or "consensus". --Uncle Ed 14:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(Catskul 2004 Feb 15) -- " biologists virtually all take a Darwinist stance; while only about 1 out of 10 US laymen do" What? Where do you get that number... I know very few people who take a Creationist stance. " evolution skeptics are an 85% to 90% majority" Again.. what? Where did you find these numbers? I hope you havent put your trust in the numbers from a fundamentalist Christian website.

(William M. Connolley 20:14, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)) The mainstream is represented by IPCC, but the chances of getting you to accept that are small, so...

In "He frequently speaks out against the popular environmentalist position that significant global warming is caused by humans (see anthropogenic global warming)." I've replaced "popular environmentalist" with IPCC: since this clearly *is* the IPCC position. It also neatly encapsulates the other change I was going to make, ie swapping "he disgarees with the consensus" to "he disagrees with IPCC".

is -> was: ch 7 is in the past...

I've stripped a lot out of "IPCC Summary does not match full report" section since its (a) dodgy and (b) better on the IPCC pages, where (I think) the existing text covers it.

(Catskul 2004 Feb 13) -- I removed the letter to the mayor section, as it is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, person composing the section arbitrarily picked a model which to compare Lindzens claim. I found the claim in one of his published articles (which are available on his website) and he in fact states the specific model to which he is refering, which by no supprise is not the same model which has a wikipedia article.

(William M. Connolley 17:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Unsubstantiated? Rubbissh. Its well referenced. Unlike what you've written above, which has none. As to the models used: if L wants to write articles saying "out of date climate models show results that are not up to date", then thats fine, but if he writes "models show..." it will be assumed that he (as an IPCC paricipant) is talking about state-of-the-art models - so it should be pointed out (again, by hard references) that he is correct. You are using NPOV to try to censor stuff you disagree with.

(Catskul 2004 Feb 15) -- Do you claim that the IPCC model that you have linked to is the only contemporary model which makes predictions of average temperature rise? It seems that only if you do, could you claim that you know which model he was refering to. At most, without knowing which models he was referring to, you can only jump on the fact that he was (possibly intentionally?) ambiguous with which models he was comparing to. Also, the wikipedia link which is the only one you originally had is irrlevant because we cant use it to confirm or refute whether or not Lindzens claims were false. The original Letter to Mayor section did not have any hard references.
Furthermore upon google'ing around this letter, I found this [2] which seems to contain some climate models which he may have been referring to. When I have time to read it in depth, I may attempt to merg this information into the Letter to Mayor section

(William M. Connolley 21:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)) No, several other models also make similar predictions. So when Lindzen says "models" (note the S: not just one model) get it wrong by a factor of 2-3, he is being deliberately misleading. L is trying to say that GCMs get it wrong, by referring to out-of-date models, whereas (as he perfectly well knows) the best models get it right. I didn't find your models in your tech ref above: could you be more precise?

(Catskul 2004 Feb 15) -- The reference has mention of some "Canadian" and "Hadley" models. I am not familiar with them, but it seems like something to consider he may have been referring to. Also "Without urgent action, average temperatures in the state could rise by 6 to 10 degrees during this century" -- from original op-ed piece which lindzen was responding to. It is quite possible that he was referring to what ever model the mayors 6-10 degree prediction used. Furthermore criticizing current models would be rather irrelivant as any one which would be still be being considered would have taken in to account all current data... That is to say It would be *fitted* to all up-to-date data, and therefore not really making predictions.

(William M. Connolley 22:24, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Hadley would be hadcm3, is the one referred to in the IPCC link. You could have found this out yourself (link http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm leads you to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127 which leads you to look up Stott in the reference list http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/473.htm from where you could have found Hadley Centre. But while a direct chain I admit its not so easy for a non-expert to follow. However, all that is irrelevant. L is saying that models - with an s - overpredict warming by a factor of 2-3. L is perfectly well aware that this isn't true for the best models. He is deliberately being misleading (and note that I *don't* say that in the article - that *would* be POV - all I'm sying is that L's statement is wrong).

You're starting a red herring with "*fitted*" - L doesn't complain about that, lets stick to what he says.

ps: have you considered creating a user page?

(Catskul 2004 Feb 15) -- What would be his motovation for being deliberately misleading. He is not a lobbiest for Texico or a politician. What would he have to gain? Saying that a scientist is being deliberately misleading is a rather serious accusation.

(William M. Connolley 09:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Its my personal opinion. I can see no other explanation (other than carelessness, a slight possibility).

Skipping points, I think that the models are fitted is relevant. Of course he is not taking issue with the fact that they are fitted. If they didnt fit the data then they would be useless. Attempting to criticize current accepted models on the basis of that they dont fit the data would then be a paradox. Therefore its not a red herring.

"fitting" of models is a topic, for discussion if you like, but not relevant here. Lets try to keep the discussion clean not muddied.

(What is a user page? Do you mean about myself ?)

Yes indeed. Go to the "page history" and click, if you like, on me. Now go back, and click on you, and put something in...

Hysterical Censorship by The Usual Suspects

I see that certain individuals simply cannot stand anything that interrupts their own private view of the universe... I am returning the Lindzen quote because it quite eloquently sums up his view on the IPCC and happens to be the main reason why people outside his own professional circle have even heard of him.

I'd love to hear anyone try to argue why this quote shouldn't be included.

There is also some questionable writing in the old version, who starts sentances with "Indeed,"? It sounds bad.

I'm also reverting some other good changes back that were ousted for no good reason.--JonGwynne 03:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biased Article

I find the entire tone of this article to be very biased. It seems that Mr. Lindzen's views are dismissed my many for dissenting from the popular view of global warming. Rather than dispute his findings, he appears to be attacked with innuendo.

I don't know if I'd call this article "very biased," but it is pretty clear that the authors of the article disagree with Lindzen. SkipSmith 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Sorry - I forgot to explain my reverts on the main page.[3] I reverted because ScottSA didn't explain his deletion, and the material appears verifiable and notable. TheronJ 19:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of view that Lindzen is wrong

I cut two sections which argue directly that Lindzen is wrong:

National Academy of Sciences panel Lindzen served on an 11-member panel [4] organized by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel's report, titled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions[5], has been widely cited.

The first paragraph of the Summary for policymakers (SPM) states,

"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."[6]

---

However, while the full text does warn that 20 years is too short to estimate long term trends, this does not qualify their statement about greenhouse gases causing warming as Lindzen implies. In fact, it is a warning about the satellite data, which at the time the report was written did not show much warming. Here is the context in which the warning about long-term trends occurred:

Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council report, which concluded that the observed difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real, as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system.

---

All of the above needs to be attributed to the person making the argument. Otherwise it violates Wikipedia:No original research. --Uncle Ed 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, thats pretty feeble. You've cut text that is unarguably sourced, for the reason that it points out inconsistencies in L's position. If L is making out-of-context quotes, its quite in order for wiki to point that out. William M. Connolley 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Where in the policy pages does it say that Wikipedia itself is allowed to assert that a person has made out-of-context quotes? I thought that was called Wikipedia:Advocacy and was therefore a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. --Uncle Ed 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The page doesn't assert that. What are you talking about? William M. Connolley 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. C., have you been getting enough sleep lately? :-) You just said that "wiki" was "quite in order" to point out that "L is making out-of-context quotes". --Uncle Ed 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The L page *doesn't* assert he has made OOC quotes William M. Connolley 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you say it was "quite in order" to do that?

You also said that "it points out inconsistencies in L's position". Isn't that a violation of WP:OR? --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a bit desperate... the "points out" refers to the text quoted. Look, admit it, L has been misleading; why try to rescue him? William M. Connolley 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's trying to rescue him? If he's been misleading, then either:

1. A named source can easily be found who says "Lindzen was misleading about X"; or,
2. Wikipedia itself can endorse the view that Lindzen was misleading.

Agreed? --Uncle Ed 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In a great number of important ways, the summary for policymakers isn't the same as the full report.

The bet

I deleted some rather inaccurate stuff. Lindzen's claim that climate scientists think that temperature should be increasing by 0.3C/decade is a trivially incorrect straw man (check the TAR). His offer of a bet which will only lose if this nonexistent prediction turns out to be a substantial underestimate can in no way be honestly considered "splitting the difference" (if you disagree, please explain what difference is being split).Jdannan 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth, my man.  ;) If Reason reported that Lindzen said X, it's not really our place not to report "Lindzen said X" because we believe that X is not true. (I have no problem with William's solution of adding a paragraph saying "Y", however) TheronJ 11:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also not our place to report every dishonest statement that L has ever made ("verifiable" or not), or else doubtless this article would be rather larger.Jdannan 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's a section about the bet between Annan and Lindzen and Lindzen has made a public comment about the bet, his comment is verifiable and notable, AFAICT. William, Ed, what do you guys think? TheronJ 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're arguing with James Annan, who presumably knows something about it... William M. Connolley 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, I didn't even put that together. Hi James. I would have been a little less flippant if I realized who you were, but we're still kind of stuck with what Lindzen has said publicly versus what you have said. Are there any other sources we can look at? Thanks, TheronJ 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's ok now. Note to self: don't start editing controversial articles just before going on holiday!Jdannan 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic writings vs. popular writings

Lindzen is best known to the public for his skepticism about anthropogenic global warming as reflected in Wall Street Journal Op-Eds, etc. Is this refelected in his academic research at all? I.e. do any of his academic papers or preprints make a case in this direction (like say McKitrick)? Crust 19:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not much... at least not that I can think of. He had the "iris hypothesis" I suppose... Chou MD, Lindzen RS Comments on "Examination of the decadal tropical mean ERBS nonscanner radiation data for the iris hypothesis" JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 18 (12): 2123-2127 JUN 15 2005 is him complaining that people don't believe it... ; Zurita-Gotor P, Lindzen RS Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part I: A barotropic analog JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES 61 (13): 1469-1482 JUL 2004 is more typical; Lindzen RS, Giannitsis C Reconciling observations of global temperature change GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 29 (12): Art. No. 1583 JUN 15 2002 is him embarsassing himself by failing to realise that the upper air series were wrong in 2002: It is suggested that the much publicized discrepancy between observed surface global mean temperature and global mean atmospheric temperature from 1979 to the present may be due to.... I guess that counts as being skeptical, if you know what you're looking for William M. Connolley 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. So it sounds like his public skepticism is more or less independent of his own research (unlike say McKitrick). Crust 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think William is wrong here. He's (Lindzen) done stuff on volcanoes claiming to show that climate sensitivity is very low (but this was with an extremely simple model: more complex ones with realistic sensitivities agree closely with the obs). There was also a paper claiming that the ocean warming didn't indicate much if any support for existing models. IIRC, he has a web page with all his papers where these can easily be found.Jdannan 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You calling me wrong, punk? OK, maybe I am. In fact I wrote the "not much" before looking up the papers, and was surprised by how many of them were almost overtly skeptical. I didn't see the volcanoes one, though - is that from a way back? William M. Connolley 07:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lindzen and Giannitsis 1998 (184 on this page: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html) may be the most recent. He may have given up on this line of argument once it became clear that more sophisticated models can reproduce realistic volcanic cooling with sensitivity of 2-4C or thereabouts (his simple model needs S<1 or something).Jdannan 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting that he is or was a skeptic about volcanic cooling (or at least proposed a model in which there is a little volcanic cooling). In fairness to WMC, I meant skepticism about anthropogenic global warming; presumably skepticism about volcanic cooling is pretty much unrelated. Crust 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are misundserstanding. He is using the cooling to estimate climate sensitivity William M. Connolley 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. (His simple model was using volcanoes to estimate sensitivity to forcings in general not just sensitivity to volcanoes.) Crust 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Model fitting"

This issue was brought up earlier but called a 'red herring' (tut, tut, William). However, I recall watching a documentary a couple of years ago where Lindzen himself discussed the running of models constructed, in part, from historic temperature and CO2 data, over past time scales to see if they 'predicted' the observed temperature changes. When, unsurprisingly, their 'predictions' matched the observations, this is commonly cited as 'validation' of the models (and the underlying theories, presumably). Lindzen called this practice "at best sloppy, at worst fradulent" (I paraphrase). His basic point was that only when models are able to predict FUTURE temperature changes can they be considered valid (and so there would always be a time-lag between development and validation of a few years). This would seem to support his use of the predictions of older models regarding recent temperature changes to critique their validity (as they are predicting the future, given that whilst the changes have occured, they are not built into the model). I'm a layman on this, so don't beat up on me if I'm off base (don't know how to sign in either).

Please reword this unclear part or remove this original analysis (I don't know which it is)

"this does not qualify their statement about greenhouse gases causing warming as Lindzen implies." -- a statement defended (written?) by William M. Connolley

"We are quite confident ... that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth" -- Lindzen, WSJ, 2001.