
How to answer climate change denial - animeshk
https://medium.com/@animesh_48355/how-to-answer-climate-change-denial-hint-build-stuff-b543943c0095
======
vixen99
It's claimed there are two groups of 'denialists': to which group does
Professor Richard Lindzen belong? 'Lobbyist' or 'Ignorant'?

Richard Lindzen: 'Emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, where he was the
Alfred P. Sloan Professor, beginning in 1983. Prior to that he was the Robert
P. Burden Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University'.

"The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support
for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and
rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain
hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing
CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by
dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth."

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-
to-t...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-
letter-objecting-to-his-petition-to-trump-to-withdraw-from-the-unfcc/)

~~~
animeshk
Interesting. I don't know what's with Prof. Lindzen, but I remember reading
the letter he sent to the President regarding withdrawal from UN climate
convention, which was opposed by 22 Professors and assistant professors via
another letter.

[http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-
fac...](http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-
working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump)

If we are just talking about numbers, there are far more scientists backing
the claim with valid research data than those who don't.

Lobbyists like Shell even pay many researchers to come out and talk crap.

Also, there no harm in taking the direction for clean energy alternatives and
making policies that support such initiatives. In spite of the data, high
carbon emission will certainly not help the future generations.

------
DarkKomunalec
I think a counterpoint that often gets overlooked is that, since denialists
express _doubt_ in current predictions, can we afford to take that _risk_? Can
we afford to keep increasing CO2 levels, until we _know_ it won't lead to
unwanted and/or irreversible changes?

I.e. prove that more CO2 is safe, not that it's dangerous, before emitting
more.

~~~
animeshk
That's the most scary thing.. A fair amount of hope could come from scientists
running for the office rather than hoping for someone sane to take power..

