Irrelevant, FC. The fact is that CO2 is a very minor player compared to natural forces. You have already forgotten: âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â ~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist
Unless of course Richard Lindzen's latest model is wrong, as were his models on..... source: RationalWiki Satellite measurements showing no warming. Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an "old view.") Solar and volcanic forcings were severely downplayed to fudge data. Misrepresenting the link between warming and hurricanes. oh and his.... claiming that the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak." Where the credible science points.... really? It looks more as if you are on the wrong side for the right reasons.
He's not talking about a forecast. He's talking about the facts up until now. He isn't saying I predict the impact of man made CO2 will be.... He is saying the impact of man made CO2 is......... Big difference. Besides, you are using a junk HIT website. You'll notice there is nothing on that page about Lindzen that is positive. All of it is negative in an effort to discredit Lindzen. It's just a collection of hit pieces on the science rationalwiki has decided themselves is not to their liking and they are trying to discredit. The work at rationalwiki is NOT CREDIBLE in itself. One website talks about rationalwiki: What is there to discuss here? Not a lot. RationalWiki has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that it is virulently ideological and that the only safe position to take is to treat any information it contains as suspect and that it cannot be taken at face value without verification from more credible external sources. You will get a completely different view of Lindzen at the regular Wikipedia page.
And you ignore the fact that he is a hack with next to no credibility among the climate community as a whole and CO2 is responsible for around 20% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Because you are an intellectually dishonest douchebag. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if itâs wrong science. I donât think itâs intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, âWeâre sure itâs not a problem.â Itâs a special kind of risk, because itâs a risk to the collective civilization."[59] A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."
Yeah, we all rush to the NYT for the truth on Global Warming. LOL You are biased and only report what you read from AGW promoters. The science and the truth have no place in your argument. That's why the more the facts and the climate deviate from what the AGW Alarmists claim should happen the more adamant you become. Instead of embracing the truth and adjusting your thinking to accept the truth and new discoveries, you run from the real science and the unrefuted truth all the while yelling louder and louder about your false beliefs.