Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lindzen's response to Schneider

For the record, here is what Lindzen has said in response to Schneider:

Significant Variation?

Surprisingly Schneider spends some five pages remarking on my response to a survey on climactic issues. His discussion is an example of his practice of suggesting that critics are "extreme" and thus incorrect, without actually addressing the issues in question. The survey was prepared in connection with an integrated assessment study by Granger Morgan and David Keith at Carnegie Mellon University. Schneider refers to a particular question as "typical," and notes that my answer differed from that of the other fifteen other "experts." The question was "What equilibrium change in global temperature did one expect from a doubling of CO2?" I had put forward a guesstimate of 0.3oC with a standard deviation of 0.2oC. The rest of the responses clustered around 2oC-3oC with very large standard deviations. Schneider implies that the fact that my response differed from the others discredits my response.

But the question he focuses on was not typical. The authors of the study noted that there were very large differences among the respondents for all the other questions. Further, the authors recognized that the tendency for the responses to the question at issue to cluster around the commonly presented model based value probably represented a herd instinct since the accompanying estimates of large uncertainty suggested that there was little real basis for the specific guess.

Now consider the question in question. A doubling CO2 in the atmosphere results in a two percent perturbation to the atmosphere’s energy balance. But the models used to predict the atmosphere’s response to this perturbation have errors on the order of ten percent in their representation of the energy balance, and these errors involve, among other things, the feedbacks which are crucial to the resulting calculations. Thus the models are of little use in assessing the climatic response to such delicate disturbances. Further, the large responses (corresponding to high sensitivity) of models to the small perturbation that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide crucially depend on positive (or amplifying) feedbacks from processes demonstrably misrepresented by models. Without the model results, one is left with little to suggest that there is significant warming caused by human activities, as opposed to the normal variability intrinsic to the climate system. In addition other studies, based on data, pointed to low sensitivity and negative rather than positive feedbacks. Whence my guesstimate.

Clearly, what dismayed Schneider was not so much my estimate, but my refusal to go along with a large range of uncertainty. Without large uncertainty, one cannot squeeze disaster out of integrated assessments, and hence, for Schneider, vagueness and uncertainty become the sin qua non for scientific credibility. My own feeling is that scientists can be wrong, but they should try to make their predictions definite enough for opponents to disprove. (emphasis added)

So there are a number of important points here; (1) Lindzen says that there was in fact nothing "typical" about the question, and that Schneider is distorting things to exaggerate Lindzen's "extremeness." (2) Lindzen calls the response a "guess." (3) Lindzen has defended the guess on the basis that it is at least specific enough to be falsifiable.

The decision to use a controversial source such as Stephen H. Schneider is not a good one. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Industry Links

If you consider my paraphrasing of the source I provided to be WP:OR then fine, we should simply reintroduce my original edit here. There is no paraphrasing there, merely a recitation of known facts from a WP:RS. The fact that you have used a secondary source does not negate my ability to use a primary one. And my edit clearly illustrates the WP:UNDUE nature of this material. The sources of funding currently being described are clearly cherry picked to give the reader a misleading impression, the fact that you have a secondary source doing the cherry picking for you does not make it any less biased and WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to expanding the list of companies as described above to show a more balanced picture of the funding sources in this case? --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's "misleading". Almost all of the deniers have similar funding and connections, as has been shown repeatedly. If it looks like a duck, etc. ► RATEL ◄ 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i object. (and already have) You are ignoring weight here, secondary sources when talking about Lindzen, and mentioning this - do not give a long list of contributors - but instead limit themselves to the ones that are already mentioned. There is a reason for this, its that the secondary sources only consider these relevant with regards to Lindzen, and that is what we must do as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you are the one ignoring weight here. The fact that the funding sources of the some organizations, not Lindzen himself, is being called into question on this page at all opens that subject up to WP:NPOV policy just like anything else that appears here. You can't prevent a thorough discussion of these sources which is required to provide a WP:NPOV presentation of the known facts. Wiki policy is there to insure WP:NPOV not block it. This much should be obvious.

"(and already have)" - No, you objected to the paraphrased version as being WP:OR. Including a direct list of all corporate contributors as facts drawn directly from a primary source is NOT WP:OR and it directly counters the WP:NPOV problem with the current text. --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote from WP:PRIMARY:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

Bold emphasis in the original. Itialics are mine.

The italicized section clearly describes my use of the primary source in question and thus my use is obviously within policy on that point. --GoRight (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But none of the primary sources link Lindzen to that information. Secondary sources do, and they put emphasis on the subselection of funders. What you are trying to do, is to synthesize your own version - thats not what Wikipedia is about. We're here to describe what secondary sources say, and weighting the various aspects of it. In other words: What you are trying to do is classic synthesis. Once more: NPOV is not about presenting things how we feel it is neutral, but to describe how secondary sources present it, with adequate weight put on different aspects (again according to the secondary sources). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"But none of the primary sources link Lindzen to that information." - You keep saying that like if you repeat it enough times it will matter, but it doesn't. Show me where there is a policy supporting that requirement. Once you use a source to open the topic of what funding sources support the organizations Lindzen belongs to that entire topic is subject to WP:NPOV just like anything else, and especially in a BLP. You can't just wave that off because it suits you.

"What you are trying to do, is to synthesize your own version" - Sorry, but repeating this one does not make if true either. Extracting raw facts from a primary source is NOT synthesis. The fact that those facts are pertinent here is established by the sentence you want to have included based on your secondary source. We are not here to endorse the slanderous views of third parties as you argument effectively does. We are here to write a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, something that raw facts are perfectly amenable to but selective attribution is not.

"NPOV is not about presenting things how we feel it is neutral" - Correct, but I am doing none of that I am simply presenting raw facts which are clearly relevant in this context.

So can I assume that you intend to revert the inclusion of the raw facts? --GoRight (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Frontline article actually shows that there are more facts that could be mentioned in the article regarding Lindzen's fees etc (eg charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day). You could also says that "Frontline reports" to justify the current phrasing. Certainly, mentioning all possible supporters of Center for Science Based Public Policy would be *obvious* OR and SYN. ► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it may be fact, but it isn't pertinent fact. This article is about Lindzen, not about Cato or the other organizations - when we mention Cato et al. It is only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen, when we mention specific funders, it is also only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen. Your inclusion of a list of funders of Cato et al. is relevant for the articles on Cato (et al), but not here. You will need secondary sources to argue for its inclusion, if not then you are A) ignoring weight (which is equivalent to ignoring NPOV) B) doing original research, specifically you are doing a synthesis. And yes, i repeat this, but not because i believe that repetition will suddenly "make it true", but because it is what WP policy states. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim is 100% right on this one. GoRight's version is textbook synthesis. You need a secondary source to bridge the gap between the funding of the think tanks and Lindzen in order for those facts to be considered relevant here per WP:WEIGHT. The only complaint I have is that the current revision lists him as a "member" of Cato and the Marshall Institutes, when the source states him to only be a contributor to those. The only one it says he's ever been a member of is the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which is also the only group alleged to have received funding from DaimlerChrysler. Oren0 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the ref 29 "Lindzen is a [sic] also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org" So 9000 dollars per year for the entire Cato institute. If this is the extent of Lindzen's or Cato's presumed corruption then it proves he's utterly clean. Your smear and innuendo in this regard is quite pathetic. I'm deleting it though I'm under no illusion some misguided ideologue will reinstate it soon enough. Consider this though: If no other climate scientist has accused him of being a shill then why would those who are far less qualified? One day he'll probably be proved right and you guys will find something else to be angst-ridden about......Unbelievably the slander is officially protected. Would this happen in Encyclopedia Britannica? What a joke you are making of Wikipedia!JG17 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable indeed, and you know, the number of editors I watch who try to remove it is really something. If I really had no life I'd one day sit back and actually count the number of times the material has been reinserted by the same very small few. Wikipedia is certainly not a democracy! If only more people would speak up here instead of having your their contributions silently reverted.

More on point, can't a binding argument for its removal be made via WP:WEIGHT? Aside from the fact that there is no unbiased source reporting it (i.e. only ExxonSecrets which is really Greenpeace) there's really not a lot of meat to it. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I seem to have deleted it now. I wonder how long that will last. The problem is not even that he might have accepted money for his viewpoint. Scientists are notorious for that. Though unless they change their mind according to who pays them then their opinion is usually regarded as trustworthy. In this respect, it is Schneider who has less credibility since a) he used to promote global cooling before admitting his mistake (said admission is easily found on youtube), b) he openly advocates over-hyping science for advocacy purposes (also easy to find), and c) he likely gets more consultancy money than Lindzen anyway: Or is green advocacy to be presumed intrinsically less corruptible? But the piddling amount involved totally discredits the Cato charge anyway. The consultancy comment may be fair comment if true, though it would be dismissed as hearsay in any court. But would Lindzen not make not more money by advocating AGW? Craig Bohren confirms he lost money by being a skeptic (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm?csp=34).JG17 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's short, it's relevant (unlike attacks on Schneider), and it's back in.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on why it's so relevant, bearing in mind the triviality of the actual amount? Can you not instead find any of Lindzen's peers who say his opinions are influenced by Exxons money? Attacks on Schneider are not ok but attacks on Lindzen are fine apparently? How noble! Schneider is used in this article as a countering viewpoint to Lindzen. Yet as Bohren states in the reference I gave you above, "whatever happens [cooling or warming] Schneider can say he predicted it". Bohren further states that he only feels able to criticize now that he is retired and not reliant on government money: A complete refutation of the whole idea that industry money is more corruptible: You should read it.JG17 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Think Tanks

"think tanks" is WP:OR via WP:SYN per KDP's and Oren0's argument above regarding industry links. Unless you have a secondary source to make the bridge to "think tanks" in the context of discussing Lindzen specifically, it is WP:OR and must be removed. The current reference does NOT make such a connection. It only discusses the institutes by name and does NOT refer to them as "think tanks". --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you so much for bringing this up here. Have you recently checked the articles Cato Institute (Cato Institute is a pro-free market, libertarian think tank) and George C. Marshall Institute (George C. Marshall Institute is a conservative think tank)? As far as I can see, no one on the corresponding talk pages of the two articles has ever contested the fact that these organizations are think tanks. If you think they are not, I suggest you start there... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 02:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your WP:OR with respect to this article. Can we remove this WP:OR from the article now? Please review the argument KDP and Oren0 used above for the industry links discussion. This is directly analogous. --GoRight (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, let me borrow a summary from above from KDP and translate it into this situation: "I'm sorry, but it may be fact, but it isn't pertinent fact. This article is about Lindzen, not about Cato or the other organizations - when we mention Cato et al. It is only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen, when we mention specific funders attributes like being a think tank, it is also only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen." Show me your secondary source that calls them "think tanks" and links THAT to Lindzen. --GoRight (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you really think that it would be a problem to establish that link? Here is one (of many) Scientific American Nov 2001 "Dissent in the Maelstrom" [1]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is insufficient on multiple grounds. First it is an opinion piece and not suitable to establish a fact. Second it does not specifically call either the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute a "think tank". As you have established above one must find a secondary source (not an opinion piece) that specifically makes refers to these specific institutes as "think tanks" and then ties that characterization specifically to Lindzen. Third, your example here is still WP:OR because it is YOU that is making the connection between "think tank" and these institutes, not the secondary source.

As you yourself pointed out above, it may be a fact that these are think tanks, but it is not a pertinent fact on Lindzen's page unless you have a secondary source to make the connection. Without that source Oren0 would argue (I presume) that "think tank" is being given WP:UNDUE weight just like my inclusion of the other funding sources would be WP:UNDUE weight even though they were established facts. --GoRight (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not an "opinion piece" - sorry. It is in the profile section, not the letters section of SciAm. The connection has already been made above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But if you really insist: McCright and Dunlap(2003) "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy" Social Problems, August 2003, Vol. 50, No. 3, Pages 348–373 , DOI 10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The connection is Cato+Lindzen+Think-tank, it also states that Lindzen made a speech underwritten by OPEC in Cato's "Regulation" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be an acceptable source. Do you know if this is a peer-reviewed journal? If so this would be a WP:RS for this statement of fact. If not this is essentially expressing the opinions of the authors and is not reliable as a statement of fact. --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

Under the assumption that KDP's latest source actually is peer-reviewed, I believe that he has a valid source for making the current claims found in the section currently titled "Consulting fees and Funding sources of other organizations" as related to "Think Tanks". I have been noting a lot of edit waring over this particular section and its contents for some months. So to determine whether there is actually a consensus for inclusion of this section AT ALL, I reviewed the past 100 edits with the following conclusions based on actual edits to the main space article:

For Inclusion:

1. Splette
2. Stephan Schulz (Think Tanks) (ExxonMobil)
3. Ratel (Whole Section) (ExxonMobil)
4. KimDabelsteinPetersen (ExxonMobil)
5. Atmoz (ExxonMobil)
6. Brian A Schmidt (ExxonMobil)
7. William M. Connolley (ExxomMobil)

Against Inclusion:

1. JG17
2. GoRight (Think Tanks) (Whole Section - Questioning Now)
3. Alexh19740110 (Whole Section)
4. 72.82.44.253 (ExxonMobil)

Items in parenthesis indicate the content that was either added or removed. Given this I question the existence of a clear consensus to support the inclusion of this section or some portions of the content therein. I believe that WP:BURDEN requires that the individuals seeking to include the material demonstrate that such a consensus actually exists. How would those who favor the inclusion of this material seek to demonstrate such a clear consensus? Lacking such a demonstration the entire section should be removed for lack of a consensus to include it per the above anlysis. --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Note - 3 of the 8 accounts GoRight uses to argue against consensus are already-identified0-and-blocked Scibaby accounts (Chas Balz, Samuel Belkins, and Vertpox). So much for his argumentum-ad-sockpuppetem. Raul654 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so they were. This has been corrected. I didn't bother to visit all the user pages, sorry. 7/12 => ~58% still short of a clear consensus which is typically viewed as being 2/3 or more, or in some cases as much as 3/4 or more. Still much closer than it was. --GoRight (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction - Stephen Boltzman is also a tagged-and-blocked Scibaby sockpuppet. And now that I look more closely, (a) from his contribs, it's possible that Alexh19740110 is a scibaby sockpuppet too, and (b) Scibaby has on at least 3 occasions used IPs in the 72.x.x.x network. The more I look, the more it appears that the current edit warring is the result of GoRight and Scibaby alone. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but unlike you I don't have a Scibaby obsession. I trust that if there is any possibility whatsoever that Scibaby is involved in something you will chime in to point that out. I'll gladly delegate that responsibility to you so that I might concentrate on other things. "The more I look, the more it appears that the current edit warring is the result of GoRight and Scibaby alone." - (a) I am not actually edit warring here since after my individual WP:BOLD edits I have taken my discussion here to the talk page, and (b) as for the rest of your comment when that becomes an actual statement of fact rather than unsubstantiated rhetoric let me know. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post has described both Cato and Marshall as think tanks. (Full versions not available online) [2][3] Cato described as a TT by Business Week.[4] Marshall as a TT by Newsweek.[5] -Atmoz (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the actual point of this discussion. Whether or not Cato or GCM are think tanks is NOT what is at issue here. For the sake of this discussion we can accept that they are as being known fact. The discussion is whether that fact is pertinent to this article as determined by secondary sources. KDP and Oren0's argument above is that going out and finding known facts about Cato or GCM is STILL not usable on this page unless a secondary source connects said facts to Lindzen (i.e. because otherwise it was WP:OR to go gather those facts and bring them here). None of your sources appear to make that connection (although I wasn't able to read the full sources). The point has become moot because KDP appears to have found a satisfactory source for that point. All you need to do now is add that source to the article in the proper place. Given the elimination of apparent Scibaby socks from my analysis above my claim of a lack of consensus is admittedly much more tenuous than it first appeared. --GoRight (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all Scibaby socks have been deleted. We have a source linking Lindzen to Cato and Marshall. C and M are obviously think tanks. There are many, many sources that describe them as such. Insisting that a single source is needed that links L to the TTs C and M is horse hockey. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"We have a source linking Lindzen to Cato and Marshall." - Correct.

"C and M are obviously think tanks." - An obvious fact but one that is not pertinent on this page without a reliable secondary source to connect that combination of facts to Lindzen, per KDP and Oren0's argument above concerning the funding sources of these organizations. Regardless, this point is now moot as KDP found a satisfactory (at least to me) source. Just use that. After the sock puppet adjustments above it is clear that there is a consensus at this time for inclusion of this topic, so I am no longer asserting that objection (unless the consensus changes at some point).

"There are many, many sources that describe them as such. Insisting that a single source is needed that links L to the TTs C and M is horse hockey." - Funny, this is the exactly analogous point being made over at Lawrence Solomon with respect to his being an "environmentalist". Would you support using this same argument there? If not why should it apply here? --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the objections to calling Solomon an environmentalist are absurd. -Atmoz (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then. There is one more point of agreement between us. --GoRight (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Except of course that the "exactly analogous point" isn't being made at Lawrence Solomon. There are no reliable sources calling LS an environmentalist, where as here we have multitudes of reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"There are no reliable sources calling LS an environmentalist ..." - With all due respect I don't believe that you are being objective on this point. --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[I have removed my responses to the sockpuppetry allegation] Alex Harvey (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please be careful with accusations of sockpuppetry in order to discredit edits/editors. The basic rule is either file the SPI, or STFU about it, as it becomes contrary to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You also push very hard to force an editor to out themself as defence. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Page is 'protected' ???

Page says it was protected because of an 'edit-war'.

Here is the revision history:

1. (cur) (prev) 05:14, 27 August 2009 Raul654 (talk | contribs) m (24,976 bytes) (Protected Richard Lindzen: Edit warring; sockpuppetry ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC))))
2. (cur) (prev) 03:54, 27 August 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (24,976 bytes) (Undid revision 310295840 by A Prose Narrative (talk))
3. (cur) (prev) 03:18, 27 August 2009 A Prose Narrative (talk | contribs) (24,931 bytes) (Removed extraneous connection to Exxon. Many universities also accept funds from oil companies, and we don't directly associate all of the faculty with the donor company.)
4. (cur) (prev) 10:46, 25 August 2009 Splette (talk | contribs) (24,976 bytes) (Undid revision 309949007 by JG17 (talk) undo unexplained removal of sourced content)

insert I did actually explain that removal above, with a valid objection and a challenge which was ignored. The "sourced content" is merely 3rd hand repetition of hearsay. I asked that someone find a quote from one of Lindzen's peers saying that Lindzen is corrupt. That would be relevant. Hearsay smears aren't either relevant or morally defensible. By the way, Lindzen's Cato work is online here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

On reading that, people can more easily judge for themselves who benefits and from what.JG17 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is that an edit-war I am looking at? Or a page that got 2 edits in 2 days (discounting the one that protected the page)? Can the protection be removed again, please? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

TGGWS

I reject the notion that this is a BLP violation. Sir John Houghton is a recognized authority on global warming, and his opinion is notable. If editors what to discuss that this may give undue weight to this topic, that is another issue. I will again disagree. In my opinion, knowingly being in a disinformation film masquerading as a documentary is extremely notable. I strenuously object to using BLP as a sledgehammer to remove reliably sourced statements that cast the subject in a negative light. -Atmoz (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So, it's non-notable. It's not about Lindzen being a poor scientist, it's him appearing in a piece that other people have criticized/don't like. There's also synthesis going on by suggesting, without a citation, that appearing in such a film reflects upon him. Unless it's widely viewed as saying something larger about Lindzen himself, there is no reason for it to be there. (And by the way BLP is used quite frequently (and likely wrongly) by some folks as a reason to remove material about other people in the climate field.) HarmonicSeries (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said! WVBluefield (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I add here, this whole "media appearances" section is way too long. Anyone would think that Lindzen was a talkshow host! Yes, Lindzen is an activist for his cause. Yes, Lindzen passionately believes that humanity is headed, with climate change confusion, to disaster. Yes, therefore, he has appeared in the media a lot. Yes, a lot of scientists disagree with him. This is not, however, deserving of a section so long. I think this article needs seriously trimming. It is enough for us to state, accurately, that Lindzen holds a minority view. I don't see why we need to know the specifics of what each and every scientist rebutting him has said. It's just not interesting, and not encyclopaedic. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)