Wigley calls a Lindzen paper “crap” but fears it anyway.
The e-mail exchange is below.
###
From: Tom Wigley [mailto:wigley@ucar.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:44 AM
To: Joel Smith
Cc: Kumar, Naresh
Subject: Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide
Joel,
You are right — there is no way that I can cover all the skeptics
ideas and literature. So I have to be selective, and also try to
touch the main skeptic bases — which is what I am trying to do.
You are right re Lindzen. As he is one of the most credible of the
skeptics (he is a very clever person with a top reputation outside
of the global warming area) he gets higher priority. Just as an
example, I’ve been involved in some published criticisms of work
by Scafetta and West — one example of the idea that the Sun is
the dominant forcing, and this is only one of the skeptics ideas.
We have spent weeks on this issue alone.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++
Joel Smith wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> Thanks for the update. Naresh I wonder if you agree with this: Tom I
> suggest you cover what you reasonably can. I am not sure it is
possible
> to write the definitive piece addressing all the issues raised by
> skeptics. I think it makes sense to focus on the most credible
skeptics
> such as Lindzen as well as addressing the major arguments of the
skeptics.
>
> I’m in Tempe today, but will be availalbe over the weekend if you want
> to talk.
>
> yours,
>
> Joel
>
>
————————————————————————
> *From:* Tom Wigley [mailto:wigley@ucar.edu]
> *Sent:* Thu 11/5/2009 2:47 PM
> *To:* Joel Smith
> *Cc:* Kumar, Naresh
> *Subject:* Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
> Dioxide
>
> Joel,
>
> Making slow progess. I have spent a lot of time on the latest
> piece by Lindzen on climate sensitivity. Given Lindzen’s esteem, and
the
> fact that his work is in a good journal (GRL) it is important to cover
> this. I’ve been in touch with others on it — there is nothing
published
> to cite rebutting it (yet).
>
> I’ve also spent a lot of time on two other issues, urban warming and
> some recent criticisms of tree ring data. I have these three items
under
> control, but need to insert them into the Report.
>
> I hope to have a more complete version by Sunday.
>
> The trouble with this is that there is so much material to cover, and
> a lot is quite recent (after the AR4).
>
> Tom.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Joel Smith wrote:
> > HI Tom
> >
> > Naresh and I just spoke. Given that this article was not even
published
> > in a journal on climate, we think it is not worth referencing it in
your
> > paper.
> >
> > Could you send an along on update on where you are. FYI: I’m
heading out
> > this afternoon to a meeting in Tempe AZ and will be gone through
> tomorrow.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> > Joel
> >
> >
————————————————————————
> > *From:* Kumar, Naresh [mailto:NKumar@epri.com]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:31 AM
> > *To:* Joel Smith; Tom Wigley
> > *Subject:* Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide
> >
> > I don’t know if you have seen this paper someone sent me. I haven’t
read
> > it yet (only the abstract). I don’t know if there are any issues
here
> > that can be included in the “Response to Skeptics” while fully
> > understanding it is too late to ask.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Naresh
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> > Naresh Kumar
> > Voice: (650) 855-8758 * Fax: (650) 855-1069 * Cell: (650) 387-7565
> >
>
>
date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: Revised CC text
to: Phil Jones
Thanks, Phil.
A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest
Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper
to avoid giving Lindzen the last word.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++