Lindzen and Spencer are both nuts. The fact that Lindzen is a professor at MIT in no way precludes him from being stupid. (I really know abiout that!)
While Mann is basically correct he is obnoxious and stupid. I once had a conversation with him not knowing who he was, and was quite shocked when I found out who he was.
Hansen is a good guy who is competent at climate science, but is not the most brilliant guy in the world. In his book he has two quotes from Feynman which actually contradict eachother. (That doesn't make Feynman look so good, either.) Hansen also strained real hard in his book to find something to blame on Al Gore, apparently in an attempt like the loser moderates here to look fair and balanced. (Apparently Gore 's uncle had a barber who had a parking ticket, or whatever) Nevertheless, I do think Hansen knows what differential equations are.
I try to be generally aware of theories related to climate change, and pay particular attention to those who are respectable and yet differ from the great majority. The problem with people like Spencer and Lindzen is that they get errantly cited by deniers as evidence that there is major debate among climatologists, but actually that the always have to cite the same two guys is proof of how few there are.
More amazing is that the deniers who use them as examples have no clue what they believe. Lindzen is not at all a climate change denier: he differs from the consensus only in that he believes that clouds will eventually be a super negative feedback. You'll hear deniers claim that CO2 can't cause the greenhouse effect, then cite Lindzen in the same paragraph. Lindzen as called such CO2 deniers "nutty" but they even know that. I don't think is sincere, he has attacked the journals for not publishing his work even after his own friends recommended not publishing.
I think Spencer is just locked into the beliefs he had 30 years ago and does not let his own data or his own embarrassing errors and correction change him, or cause him to admit he was wrong 30 years ago, or even acknowledge how much his peers have advanced his science.
My problem is not with any researchers, it is more with the goofy-right non-thinkers who only read about them and remain ignorant of how isolated the theories of Lindzen and Spencer are. They hold beliefs the differ from each other and from anybody else in the world. They should be respected as educated minorities, but everyone should understand that they are minorities. Neither Spencer nor Linzen is a crack-pot, but the goofy ueber right-wingers who pretend their theories are alike or held by many are surely crack-pots.
I'm sure they are fine people. Though, from what I've seen of Ray evens I'm not too fond of him. Because we do not agree on one thing does not mean we can;t agree on others. for instance. I've seen JimZ post in the anthropology forums now and then as has his brother. And I agree with them and often give them thumbs up. I'm sure that we could have an in-depth and knowledgeable conversation about the subject.
As for Spencer and Lindzen, again I am sure they are pleasant people though have not met them myself. Just because someone is a global warming skeptic does not mean that they are out to destroy the environment, send their armies to foreign countries to take them over, deny evolution because God didn't mention it in the bible, and so on. Also, just because someone does not question AGW does not mean that they have not fallen under the same problems the skeptics on Y!A have by paying attention to propaganda. For people on both sides of the debate I recommend learnign the science as opposed to listening to others tell you about it.
Yes, I can only say that all of these people are apparently educated enough, but other than that I don't know them personally. Other than being authors, researchers, etc. they are not on my radar as far as my own investigation of climate change causes.
I tend not to lionize or demonize people who tend to be charismatic leaders in any endeavor - whether it be climate science, health, food critics, entertainment, etc.. I find you get to the truth quicker that way, while your soul remains intact.
I think Mann was smart enough to take the opportunity to turn climate science from a bit player into a multi-billion dollar industry. I think Hansen is a political zealot who has no problem using his position to push his political agenda which he lovingly refers to as his cause.
Richard Lindzen is a brilliant scientist, Roy Spencer is a honest scientist.
Mann is a snake oil con artist, Hanson I'm not sure if I give him the benefit of the doubt, deluded zealot.
They probably did something worthwhile that probably helped contribute greatly to the scientific world
Just remember everything matters
They make Bernie Madoff look like such a small time crook . He only took investors , Those guys took the world.
James Hansen? What nice thing can you say about an out and out liar who has cost us dearly? What nice things can you say about a Climatologist who came out of the closet and is now a full time Communist agitator. He was born and raised around Dennison, Ia., that is a nice area of the country. He went to Iowa, that is a nice school.
Michael Mann, even the school he teaches at is corrupt. Anyone remember Sandusky?
Warmers
Do you have anything nice to say about such scientist as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen?
Skeptics
Do you have anything nice to say about such scientists as James Hansen and Michael Mann?
Say James, that's a nice hat, where did you get it?
Say, Mikey, that's a very nice Hockey Stick, how much would you charge ME for one of those?
:)
Try realclimate.org
Yeppers. Skepicism in science is often critically important. These two are important in "deconstructing" the Myth of Global Warming. Their arguments are very compelling.
Coming from you, master of the ad hominem, this question is laughable.
