Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

"Climate
Science In Denial" (op-ed, April 22), Richard Lindzen's attempt to
catapult a series of minor errors into a sweeping condemnation of
climate science, represents an irresponsible and misleading attempt to
substitute polemic for reason. While ignoring the vast body of evidence
of ongoing climate change, from increasing sea level to retreating
glaciers, from basic theory to advanced climate models, Mr. Lindzen
clings to his agenda of denial, advancing spurious hypotheses that have
been thoroughly refuted in the peer-reviewed literature, even by climate
scientists otherwise inclined toward a conservative view of the issue.

No climate scientist
denies that the present state of the science entails large uncertainties
in climate projections, with possible outcomes ranging from benign to
catastrophic. While science works to reduce these uncertainties,
citizens must decide whether and how much resource [sic] should be devoted to
mitigating the uncertainly estimated risk.

Prof. Kerry Emanuel

Mass. Institute of Technology

Cambridge, Mass.