Dr Lindzen at the 2010 ICCC

Time to Abandon the ‘Skeptic’ Label
M.I.T. professor says ’skepticism’ implies anthropogenic global warming theory a ‘plausible proposition.’

Richard Lindzen, in his presentation at the Heartland Conference, has the best short (100-ish word) summary of the core of many non-believers concerns with catastrophic AGW theory :

Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of these facts and of their implications.

1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf

Global Warming: How to Approach the Science.

Advertisement

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory,

challenges peers to ‘take back climate science’

an interview with  Dr. Willie Soon

Examiner.com: What is your opinion of Al Gore?

Dr. Soon: Al Gore is somebody who needs to just shut-up and stop spreading nonsense. He has neither credibility on science nor moral standing.

Examiner.com: In its latest Assessment Report, the IPCC talks about a “water vapor feedback” that magnifies the warming of CO2 emissions. Does such a feedback exist?

Dr. Soon: There is some CO2-water vapor feedback. But it’s not operating on a global scale. The modellers cannot accurately separate water vapour from the effects of clouds and rainfall. In other words, they lack the detailed understanding of clouds required to construct atmospheric models. But they keep tuning their models and claiming they can accurately simulate the effects of water vapour, but how can you do this when you can’t model clouds or rainfall properly. Changes in clouds and rainfall can overwhelm what little effect CO2-water vapour has on temperature. CO2 can never be the climate driver they say it will be over the next 20 to 50 years.