It wasn’t the implication of my comment. I only implied that from this video Richard Lindzen made is point of view perfectly clear.

I usually agree with Lindzen.

Now you didn’t actually say that the IQ2 US debate demonstrated that Lindzen was an irresponsible ideologue but can I assume that was the implication of your comment? Anyway, I couldn’t find anything Lindzen said in that debate which suggested that he was irresponsible or ideologically driven. On the contrary, he appeared to be addressing the science as he understands it. The bottom line appears to be that Lindzen is deeply skeptical of the veracity of the computer models upon which predictions of catastrophic AGW largely depend.

Could you please give me a quote from the debate in which Lindzen displayed an irresponsible or ideological bias? Perhaps I have missed something but it could also be that one persons “irresponsible ideology” is anothers “addressing the science” depending on where you sit in the debate.

Your assertion about Lindzen, McIntyre, et al. “hav(ing) little difficulty getting lots of press coverage in major venues” such as the New York Times, Newsweek, etc. is not supported by the facts. For example, I didn’t recall the Times covering McIntyre’s arguments at all. In fact, I was wrong. Andy Revkin wrote a single story back in 2005 when McIntyre’s work came up in a debate between Sherwood Boehlert and Joe Barton. Similarly, I can only find Lindzen quoted four times in the Times in the last four years. Andy Revkin has written more than 70 climate stories and quoted Lindzen once in the last year. Fred Singer has been quoted in a single New York Times story in the last five years. I can’t find a single example of Singer being quoted in Newsweek. Newsweek did publish Lindzen’s op-ed, but I can’t find him quoted in any other stories. I can’t find a single McIntyre quote in Newsweek.

My point here is that the “false balance” problem, while real in some cases, is frequently overstated, and I think you’ve strongly overstated it here.

I think that in this video Richard Lindzen make his position very clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8&mode=related&search=

Yes, I’m curious about that, too. Particularly for Steve McIntyre.

I consider an “ideologue” someone who essentially knows the answer to every question, because the answer must fit in with his existing worldview.

I haven’t seen any real evidence that Steve McIntyre even HAS a world view. His only interest seems to be that he thinks the data/analyses that went into the “hockey stick” aren’t scientifically valid.

So I don’t understand the “ideologue.”

At ClimateAudit, Steve McIntyre has repeatedly stated that he not yet made up his mind about AGW. For example, at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1260 he says “I still don’t have an opinion on whether there is a crisis or not. I am still prepared to allow for the possibility that there is a real problem.”

Richard Lindzen doesn’t have a blog so I cannot give a similarly clear cut reference for him. However, all the public statements that I have seen from him are consistent with him trying to argue the science. I see signs of him getting more and more frustrated and impatient but I have not yet seen signs of ideology.

Can you point me to something that would support your contention that they are “irresponsible ideologues”?

Thanks for your comment.

Peiser was challenging the WG2 statements about impacts and I meant to focus on those. I absolutely did not mean to assert that Landea or you were skeptical about WG1.

I was also trying (badly, it appears) to distinguish healthy skepticism about details (such as hurricane effects and detailed predictions of future impacts) from those who are more properly called denialists, such as Lindzen.

If in any way my comment might be construed to suggest that either you or Landsea questions the reality or seriousness of AGW (or the WG1 consensus), I apologize to both of you for my sloppy writing.

To step in a “meta” direction here, it’s a real sign how polarized and politicized things have become that I have a very hard time finding words with which to communicate clearly and concisely without running into political connotations that distort my intended meaning. It would be nice to have some vocabulary that doesn’t function as shibboleth!

I should have spent more time editing my comment to clarify the distinction I was trying to draw and to emphasize that although my first comment discussed both WG1 and WG2, in the latter comment I was focusing on WG2 matters and my reference to you and Landsea was in regard to your reservations about AGW/hurricane connections and your doubts about the WG2 pronouncements on trends in coastal storm damage. These doubts are reasonable given the current state of knowledge, and I intended to contrast them with irresponsible and ideological blanket denials.