On Feb 28, 1:22*am, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:30*pm, Dawlish wrote:





On Feb 27, 3:26*pm, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Feb 27, 2:08*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:13*pm, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:02*pm, Rupert Wood wrote:

On Feb 27, 2:07*am, Lawrence13 wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ.../letters-to-a-...

BBC One Planet 2010

Interviewer to Dick Lindzen

There are Tens of thousands of Climate scientist around the world who
disagree with you"

Dick Lindzen

"You know a few years ago no one in their right mind would have
assumed there were tens of thousands of climate scientist-it's a
small, small field."

Quoting the senile again? Give it a rest.

So Dick Lindzen is senile.......oh well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suppose you've read *any* of his papers, especially the 2009
paper with Choi, that was dissected by Trenberth and in the end
Lindzen had to accept the criticism and admit that the paper was
fatally flawed. It was obvious to anyone who read it - but you
wouldn't know that. You could try his 2010 paper, which re-writes some
of the physics and Spencer helped with. It's so good that not a single
publisher will touch it. But you wouldn't know that either. You don't
know *any* of his work, except what you've read in third-hand
commentary on blogs, yet you feel justified in quoting Lindzen's views
on climate science, as a way of justifying to yourself what you
believe.

Why?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you agree with your mate Woody that Lindzen is senile- remarkable
really.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No; I agree with Rupert that you know nothing about climate science,
base what ideas you have on non-science gleaned from other people's
blogs and you avoid every vaguely scientific question asked of you,
like the proverbial plague. *))- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simple question even for such a psuedo intellect like yours.
*Are you saying that Dick Lindzen is senile?

Yes or no will suffice,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would have no idea - never having met the guy. However, I know that
his last two papers have been firstly dreadfully flawed and secondly,
it appears, unpublishable.

Here's yet another unanswered question from you. You ask one, I answer
it and you, as always, try to bury what has been asked of you in the
prtence of asking a question back. Your turn:

"I don't suppose you've read *any* of his papers, especially the 2009
paper with Choi, that was dissected by Trenberth and in the end
Lindzen had to accept the criticism and admit that the paper was
fatally flawed. It was obvious to anyone who read it - but you
wouldn't know that. You could try his 2010 paper, which re-writes
some
of the physics and Spencer helped with. It's so good that not a
single
publisher will touch it. But you wouldn't know that either. You don't
know *any* of his work, except what you've read in third-hand
commentary on blogs, yet you feel justified in quoting Lindzen's
views
on climate science, as a way of justifying to yourself what you
believe.

Why?"

Well?