[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')I'm glad you're interested in Lindzen's resume and his "opinions", he should write a paper on them and have them published, don't you think? As far as the IPCC, his beef about the conclusions is that they didn't match what he thought they should, pure and simple.

[americandream]

Oh please, Lindzen, the poster boy of Thatcherite free market burn all your can fossil fuelled sub- primetopia.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')I'm glad you're interested in Lindzen's resume and his "opinions", he should write a paper on them and have them published, don't you think? As far as the IPCC, his beef about the conclusions is that they didn't match what he thought they should, pure and simple.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')This from RealClimate Comments:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')irst, it is rare that you wind up with an outright refutation of a published paper in the scientific literature. Rather, what usually happens is that questions are raised about the data or methodology of the paper. Such is the case with Lindzen’s use of ERBE data. The published work is an improvement [edit] It is still not clear if he is using the most correct version of the ERBE data, particularly since things look very different from Wong et al.
Gavin and James Annan have raised questions about why Lindzen is comparing to AMIP rather than CMIP simulations, which would be the more appropriate comparison. No response from Lindzen. See:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -choi.html

And Chris Colose has done an excellent post that bears on why Lindzen is certainly wrong:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... iting-cff/

Finally, you asked for confidence levels. I commend to you:

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/p ... natgeo.pdf

This details most of the independent lines of evidence–all of which favor a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling–and none of which support a sensitivity as low as 2 degrees per doubling with any confidence.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'O')h please, Lindzen, the poster boy of Thatcherite free market burn all your can fossil fuelled sub- primetopia.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')This from RealClimate Comments:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')irst, it is rare that you wind up with an outright refutation of a published paper in the scientific literature. Rather, what usually happens is that questions are raised about the data or methodology of the paper. Such is the case with Lindzen’s use of ERBE data. The published work is an improvement [edit] It is still not clear if he is using the most correct version of the ERBE data, particularly since things look very different from Wong et al.
Gavin and James Annan have raised questions about why Lindzen is comparing to AMIP rather than CMIP simulations, which would be the more appropriate comparison. No response from Lindzen. See:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -choi.html

And Chris Colose has done an excellent post that bears on why Lindzen is certainly wrong:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... iting-cff/

Finally, you asked for confidence levels. I commend to you:

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/p ... natgeo.pdf

This details most of the independent lines of evidence–all of which favor a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling–and none of which support a sensitivity as low as 2 degrees per doubling with any confidence.

[americandream]

I once knew many great and incomparable resumes on Wall Street. Fortunately I wasn't gullible enough to buy the vacuum cleaners they came peddling at my front door.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'O')h please, Lindzen, the poster boy of Thatcherite free market burn all your can fossil fuelled sub- primetopia.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')I'd rather try to figure out how this study as you and Monckton would suggest blows up AGW theory? The assertion here is that climate sensitivity equal to the doubling of CO2 should be calculated at around 2 degrees not 3 degrees?

By the way the questions are coming from climate scientists. To ask a question doesn't require peer-review.

[americandream]

If the truth be known, neither Thatcher's nor Gore's pets have the foggiest clue. They each have as mch clue as the geniuses who devised those fail safe mathematical trading models that subsequently cost us many trillions. That being said, I don't think paving the planet into a super Walmart carpark is the brightest idea, do you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')I'd rather try to figure out how this study as you and Monckton would suggest blows up AGW theory? The assertion here is that climate sensitivity equal to the doubling of CO2 should be calculated at around 2 degrees not 3 degrees?

By the way the questions are coming from climate scientists. To ask a question doesn't require peer-review.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')I'd rather try to figure out how this study as you and Monckton would suggest blows up AGW theory? The assertion here is that climate sensitivity equal to the doubling of CO2 should be calculated at around 2 degrees not 3 degrees?

By the way the questions are coming from climate scientists. To ask a question doesn't require peer-review.

[HeckuvaJob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'T')he beauty of science is, it doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as it holds up to the beating of other scientists. So rather than a simple ad hominem on his alleged paycheck, can you refute his science?

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Assuming its true, which isn't ever a given in science until other scientists have gotten a clear shot at it.

[americandream]

Would you still trust Lindzen, shortnosense, given the company he keeps and their track record at forecasting anything to date, no matter how convincing initially or well supported by glowing resumes? Seriously.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'W')ould you still trust Lindzen, shortnosense, given the company he keeps and their track record at forecasting anything to date, no matter how convincing initially or well supported by glowing resumes? Seriously.

[americandream]

Yes, yes, yes short, I know all that fine and noble stuff. Problem is these fools have a habit of getting it humungously wrong, then turning to me for a bailout. The economy is fine. I can outlive fcukups with the economy. The climate however is another matter. I'm not so sure about that. I'ld feel damned stupid were I to gve them the green light to pave my planet and then woke one morning to find my atmosphere on the way to Mars. See my predicament. Once bitten....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'W')ould you still trust Lindzen, shortnosense, given the company he keeps and their track record at forecasting anything to date, no matter how convincing initially or well supported by glowing resumes? Seriously.

[rangerone314]

Why not build two identical large air tight domes with temperature & other sensors in them?

One dome has standard amount of O2 and N2, other has higher amount of CO2 & methane.

Then measure the temperature differences.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'O')h no...thats not what I said. Science requires someone else to come along now and refute the newest evidence. You don't get to dismiss it just because it disagree's with prior science, or groupthink. We aren't talking about some amateur hobbyist here with a degree in basket weaving who one afternoon decided to publish something and just happened to get it through a peer review process, we are talking about an academic with as much experience as anyone else on the planet in climate science, a member of the Academy of Science in the flesh, who can be counted on to understand a wider swath of this information than nearly anyone else.

[americandream]

Exactly. I find it remarkable that these experts continue to argue endlessly over the finer points of a narrow issue when physical evidence is everywhere to be seen. It reminds me of the free market debate at the fall of the USSR, complete with experts toting impressive resumes, as the global asset market went into overdrive, perilously so.

[quote="pstarr"]GW theory is a distraction. The oceans and atmosphere are receptacles (technically sinks, just another resource) that are filling with the entropic waste-products of industrial--CO2, DDE, thylates, mercury, etc. Thermodynamics in action.

Earth is finite. Evidence abounds that we are reaching resource and energy limits. GW could be considered the canary in the coal mine reminding us of a finite planet, as could fisheries depletion, aquifer draw down, copper or phosphate depletion, etc.[/quote