It bears noting that even if the SEA mean estimate were correct, it still lies well above the ever-more implausible estimates of those that wish the climate sensitivity were negligible. And that means that the implications for policy remain the same as they always were. Indeed, if one accepts a very liberal risk level of 50% for mean global warming of 2°C (the guiderail widely adopted) since the start of the industrial age, then under midrange IPCC climate sensitivity estimates, then we have around 30 years before the risk level is exceeded. Specifically, to reach that probability level, we can burn a total of about one trillion metric tonnes of carbon. That gives us about 24 years at current growth rates (about 3%/year). Since warming is proportional to cumulative carbon, if the climate sensitivity were really as low as Schmittner et al. estimate, then another 500 GT would take us to the same risk level, some 11 years later.

Douglas Adams – Wikiquote

“For all nature is doing her best each moment to make us well. She exists for no other end. Do not resist her. With the least inclination to be well we should not be sick. Men have discovered, or think that they have discovered the salutariness of a few wild things only, and not of all nature. Why nature is but another name for health. Some men think they are not well in Spring or Summer or Autumn or Winter, (if you will excuse the pun) it is only because they are not indeed well, that is fairly in those seasons.”

McKibben, Bill ed. American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau. p.36 (hardcover)

Barbare Ehrenreich would also have something critical to say about that “With the least inclination to be well we should not be sick” claim.

Mike Beard, a Republican state representative from Minnesota, recently argued that coal mining should resume in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, in part because he believes God has created an earth that will provide unlimited natural resources.

“God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable,” Beard told MinnPost. “We are not going to run out of anything.”

Beard is currently in the midst of drafting legislation that would overturn Minnesota’s moratorium on coal-fired power plants, an effort that he backs due to his religious belief that God will provide limitless resources while ensuring that humans don’t destroy the planet trying to get them.

Drawing on his family’s childhood property in Pennsylvania, Beard explained to MinnPost his belief that while resource extraction might cause temporary agitation to the landscape, the effects wouldn’t be longterm.

Debate enthusiasts will love this long, but worthy video showing Texas A&M atmospheric scientist Andy Dessler mopping the floor with his increasingly out-of-touch colleague from MIT, Dick Lindzen.

The fact of Dessler’s victory is a value judgment that you may not trust without watching the video yourself. But speaking of value judgments, Dessler got off a great shot during his rebuttal, in which he commented on how often Lindzen had said that climate change presents “no cause for alarm.”

That, Dessler pointed out, is also a value judgment – not a scientific finding, adding:

“Before the lecture, he (Prof. Lindzen) was smoking. That’s a risk. He’s decided that’s a risk he’s willing to take. But not everybody would take that risk, so when he says there’s no cause for concern, he’s giving you his value judgment.”

Dr Richard Lindzen is a respected member of the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. He has led a distinguished career since the 1960′s, publishing hundreds of peer-reviewed articles studying and modeling Earth’s atmosphere, receiving numerous awards and being selected for membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. As a professor of meteorology and particularly with the studies of radiative and dynamical atmospheric processes that he has conducted, he certainly qualifies as an eminent climate scientist. He is also well-known as being skeptical about climate “alarmism”, arguing that feedback effects are much smaller than most other scientists have assessed. At #136 on Jim Prall’s list of most cited authors on climate change he is the third-highest-rated of the “skeptics” (after Roger Pielke Sr. and Freeman Dyson).

…

Summing up, the science in these two Wall Street Journal pieces is, in all material respects, badly wrong, skewed, or irrelevant to present climate matters. The opinion is not just verging on, but consists of outright conspiracy-mongering, accusing leaders of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies and thousands of other people of being involved in falsely promoting a “catastrophe” story so they can, for some other nefarious reason, “control carbon”. And presumably get rich on their generous scientist salaries.

So, I ask again, when will MIT begin its investigation of Lindzen? I’d like to read some of his emails!

Dr Richard Lindzen is a respected member of the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. He has led a distinguished career since the 1960′s, publishing hundreds of peer-reviewed articles studying and modeling Earth’s atmosphere, receiving numerous awards and being selected for membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. As a professor of meteorology and particularly with the studies of radiative and dynamical atmospheric processes that he has conducted, he certainly qualifies as an eminent climate scientist. He is also well-known as being skeptical about climate “alarmism”, arguing that feedback effects are much smaller than most other scientists have assessed. At #136 on Jim Prall’s list of most cited authors on climate change he is the third-highest-rated of the “skeptics” (after Roger Pielke Sr. and Freeman Dyson).

All of that is fine. While 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for significant climate change, there are still those 3% who disagree. [UPDATE The exact survey wording on the question was "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures" - which is a slightly different emphasis than my paraphrase (but is it "significant"?), and I apologize for any confusion caused]. Their arguments to the extent they are logical and have any scientific merit should be heard. Lindzen continues to publish in scientific journals, and while some of his recent papers have been greatly flawed, at least he’s continuing to actively try to put forth his position in a logical and scientific manner.

…

His motivation is most likely simply from long ago intellectually committing to the “low-climate-sensitivity” position. At close to 70 years old now he’s just resolved not to change, despite all contrary evidence.