No, we don't agree that there is minimal reason to be concerned. I say we don't know how concerned we should be.I think we can agree then, that there is yet too much unknown about climate, and that there is minimal reason to be concerned about life on Earth going forward.
In this public debate, Lindzen says things he wouldn't dare say in a peer reviewed publication. He puts a great deal of effort into trying to deny that global average temperature is a meaningful concept. But many scientists feel that the concept is highly useful, because it gives an idea of the magnitude of the changes that are occurring all over the planet. And, small changes in averages can translate into bigger effects, such as loss of species habitat, or melting ice.
Lindzen also talks about the "prosecutor's fallacy", which he says is: "If A shot B, then A will have gunpowder on his hands." Which, he says, can't be used to prove the converse: that if A has gunpowder on his hands, then A shot B. And he goes on to argue that just because CO2 has gunpowder on its hands, doesn't prove that it's causing the death of sea ice.
Well, CO2 has gunpowder hands, and is standing right next to the dying sea ice. Who else killed the sea ice? Lindzen doesn't say. Aurora borealis? Not a likely suspect. It's really an application of Bayes' law, that P(A|B) is proportional to P(B|A).
Why does Lindzen say these things, which don't stand up to critical analysis? Koch money is standing there with gunpowder on its hands.
Dowlatabadi agrees with Lindzen that climate models have limited predictive value. But strangely, Dowlatabati has devoted much of his professional life to development of a model of interaction of climate with the economic system, called ICAM (Integrated Climate Assessment Model). This makes the strange (and, in my mind, denialist) claim that extreme changes in climate will result in minimal damage to the economy. But, Dowlatabadi also recommends "A Serious Look at Geoengineering", which he suggests as a backup plan "if climate change is worse than we expect". Unfortunately, he admits that "the climate system is too poorly understood to allow quantitative assessment of risk" -- which includes the risk that geoengineering would only further disturb the system, without really fixing anything.
Suchender: what we see by observation, is that the majority of the sun's energy arriving at Earth is in the form of blackbody radiation at 6K temperature. We observe that the surface of the Sun radiates at 6K color temperature. Something is maintaining the temperature of the Sun's surface at 6,000 Kelvin, which requires enormous energy.What can be 'bizarre' in trying to find real cause and effect by observation instead of models and assumptions !?
Where does that energy come from? One model holds that it comes from fusion at the Sun's core. And, that model is verified by the emission of muons from the core. Those muons can only come from intense fusion reactions.
Where does the Sun's energy come from? Fusion reactions in the core are standing there with gunpowder on their hands.
Why do Thunderbolts say that the Sun's energy comes from cosmic rays and LENR reactions on the surface? I don't get it. It makes no sense. LENR reactions are wimpy little lab curiosities as far as we know, compared to full blooded high temperature, high pressure fusion reactions. Cosmic rays are at ridiculously low flux levels compared to the energy needed to run the Sun.
Or have I misunderstood something? Thunderbolts is not a monolithic entity, there are many different scientists that speak at their conferences. If all they're saying (on a unified basis) is that we need to study interplanetary & interstellar electrical phenomena, I have no disagreement with that.
It's only when they go disagreeing with well established science, without giving any adequate reasoning for that position, that I have trouble.