@Worsel66 @DbEspen @GeraldKutney "The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account." EVEN LINDZEN WAS FORCED TO ADMIT THEIR 2009 PAPER WAS TERRIBLE! And yet, he wasn't cancelled. If he wants to craf
RT @25_cycle: Here's the link to 2011- Check out THE SECOND SENTENCE! "An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant…
Here's the link to 2011- Check out THE SECOND SENTENCE! "An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account." https://t
@Gernot95885725 @MarcusWadsak Wenig genesen, aha. https://t.co/QJwDTq5Yme
Gerald seems to think he has tweeted anything other than rhetoric with a few Guardian articles tossed in. Here is what actual information looks like. https://t.co/Q8bNb1zHbk
@TyotoRiffle @peblackstock @climate_fact Here you are - a little reading for you. https://t.co/FS8etvgf7x https://t.co/Q8bNb1zHbk
@nickofnz Do not mistake a news outlet as a purveyor of science. Start here: https://t.co/Q8bNb1zHbk
@Veritatem2021 Here is a good one. https://t.co/Q8bNb1zHbk
@Michael71718318 @jpgcrowley @GeraldKutney Lindzen made a fool of himself with his self published 2011 paper. Did you read it? When your projections fail so utterly, you can't publish in the mainstream... https://t.co/1et7vyQQNZ
RT @25_cycle: Reference sources used Exxon: https://t.co/tjJYLi5I0X Lindzen-Choi (2011) : https://t.co/1et7vyQQNZ M&W: https://t.co/DczErN1…
RT @25_cycle: Reference sources used Exxon: https://t.co/tjJYLi5I0X Lindzen-Choi (2011) : https://t.co/1et7vyQQNZ M&W: https://t.co/DczErN1…
Reference sources used Exxon: https://t.co/tjJYLi5I0X Lindzen-Choi (2011) : https://t.co/1et7vyQQNZ M&W: https://t.co/DczErN13Rd NASA: https://t.co/7jW95FxxUe 3/3
@amywestervelt @tan123 I think he meant you provide your own sources of peer reviewed studies. Here's an example: https://t.co/nT1pQJBJ2E
MITの気候学者リチャード・リンゼンの見積もり(地球から宇宙に逃げる熱の観測データに基づく)では、気候感度は約0.7℃です。この見積もりが正しければ、仮に今後CO2濃度が倍増しても、それによる気温上昇はこの程度です。 https://t.co/WxUUIut5u4
2009 is a long time ago. Anything current?
@SteveBrownBC Lindzen's 2009 study didn't stand up to peer review. Even he acknowledged that in a later paper https://t.co/QrjYK5DfqF.
@Mooby_Doo @DrKrissy201 @FredFoxyGuy @drwaheeduddin @JWSpry @Carbongate @ClimateRealists @ClimateDepot @ClimatismBlog @realDonaldTrump @dahlqje @blaubok @tan123 @RonCrunt @alan_poirier you can find these yourself? Here is an important one: Lindzen & C
The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences August 2011, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 377-390 Date: 28 Aug 2011 Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi https://t.co/0MgvxtakmI
@ClimateOfGavin The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences August 2011, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 377-390 Date: 28 Aug 2011 Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi https://t.co/0Mgvxtakm
3C/y Richard Lindzen is government-funded: "This research was supported by *DOE grant* DE-FG02-01ER63257 [...]" https://t.co/6aDQNw1vKX
@askintoofew Scroogle it! http://t.co/D3WON5dcn1 "...models are exaggerating climate sensitivity." - Lindzen.