re: #107 Aceofwhat?

As i said a few posts ago, I have trouble finding fault with Lindzen’s comments in the WSJ a few days ago. That is my response, and i’m interested in what you and other fellow reptilians think about his take.

But I am honestly engaging with your post. One of your main tenets was that, at its core, the AGW topic is simple. I am saying that anyone who holds that to be relatively true is in danger of misunderstanding why some of us continue to ride the fence, despite the discomfort of sitting on fences for extended periods of time.

No, that is not one of my main tenants. That CO2 absorption is basic, simple physics, is one of my main tenants, and it’s helpfully absolutely true. When I said that climatology was simple yet sophisticated, the word ‘simple’ there does not approach the realm of a ‘main tenant’.

He doesn’t say a single thing there that isn’t revealed as insufficient with an hour’s reading on skepticalscience.com. Here is the particular refutation of the ‘little ice age’ argument. Coming out of an ice age. Here is the refutation of the water vapor canard, which is simply the old argument with a slightly new twist: Water vapor.

That’s what I mean about the same old tired arguments being repeated over and over. The refutations of those arguments exist already. They are widely available, and easy to find by anyone interested in the topic.