Wigley calls a Lindzen paper “crap” but fears it anyway.
The e-mail exchange is below.
From: Tom Wigley [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:44 AM
To: Joel Smith
Cc: Kumar, Naresh
Subject: Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
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.
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
> to write the definitive piece addressing all the issues raised by
> skeptics. I think it makes sense to focus on the most credible
> such as Lindzen as well as addressing the major arguments of the
> I’m in Tempe today, but will be availalbe over the weekend if you want
> to talk.
> *From:* Tom Wigley [mailto:email@example.com]
> *Sent:* Thu 11/5/2009 2:47 PM
> *To:* Joel Smith
> *Cc:* Kumar, Naresh
> *Subject:* Re: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
> Making slow progess. I have spent a lot of time on the latest
> piece by Lindzen on climate sensitivity. Given Lindzen’s esteem, and
> 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
> 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
> 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).
> Joel Smith wrote:
> > HI Tom
> > Naresh and I just spoke. Given that this article was not even
> > in a journal on climate, we think it is not worth referencing it in
> > paper.
> > Could you send an along on update on where you are. FYI: I’m
> > this afternoon to a meeting in Tempe AZ and will be gone through
> > 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
> > I don’t know if you have seen this paper someone sent me. I haven’t
> > it yet (only the abstract). I don’t know if there are any issues
> > 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
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.