by Lore » Sun 01 Nov 2009, 21:50:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')Yeah... ole two faced Lindzen, pulls punches in the published data but decries the abomination of AGW to the public, rather like Spencer.
Two faced isn't the issue either. Lindzen has a resume, and some very specific beefs about climate science and how it is being handled. His claims of the nonlinear nature of CO2 struck me as very interesting as well, but he didn't comment on how he knew this, only why it means that higher CO2 levels don't correlate with directly higher temperatures. It seems like that comment fits right in with the graphs which show no correlation between CO2 and temperature from the geology experts. There COULD be a correlation, but it only functions during early stages of CO2 rampup, which is much of what Lindzen seems to imply. Maybe. He discounts it pretty hard, so maybe, like the geologists, he thinks there is no connection at all.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')Actually the IPCC brought in many skeptics into the process. I would say rather sporting , or is that honest of them?
Part of Lindzen's skepticism came AFTER seeing the IPCC in action, particularly the modifications to what the scientists actually wrote. That sounds like a completely reasonable beef to me...what are the political hacks doing rewriting the science conclusions for in the first place?