Research Proves Global Warming Model Wrong

Richard Lindzen the iconic denier/inactivist, has asserted that negative feedbacks dominate the climate system.
In particular, he asserts that clouds are a negative feedback.
So you better read the attention-grabbing
major new study in Science from “Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback”
One climate model the researchers found was “particularly realistic” in modeling the cloud feedback, the Hadley Center’s HadGEM1, discovers,
“When carbon dioxide is doubled, the model warms the world by 4.4°C; the median of the models for a doubling is 3.1°C.” Considering that we are headed toward more than a tripling of CO2 concentrations this century, that is very, very worrisome.
“Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback”

Coopmeister:

If astronomers discovered a huge comet that was hurtling toward our solar system wouldn't it be great news if they subsequently determined that it wasn't going to hit us? Of course. Similarly, it would also be great news if it were determined that humans are not heating the planet. Why is it, then, that when someone offers such evidence they are personally attacked? Why is it that some people seem to want there to be a crisis?

Calling someone a "denier" doesn't advance the search for truth. If you have a complaint about Lindzen's work, or believe that it has been misinterpreted, then offer your evidence. His work should be eagerly examined, and we should all hope that it is correct. If it is, the only losers will be those with a vested interest in global warming.

Richard Boren

I've noticed that Al Gore either cuts off a microphone of someone who disagrees with his "scientific claims" or simply does not allow any questions of an opposing viewpoint. That should make those that accept global warming wonder if this whole viewpoint has been taken out of context and that Al Gore knows it's wrong. I think Gore knows its wrong and does not want to give up his stardom and money that he's obtained. but there is a growing thought that Global warming is a farce, and greatly exaggerated, and like you said, many other countries simply do not care in the first place. Who are we to tell these countries they cannot develop since Al Gore and his greenies said so.

The greenies now care more about power than actual science.

Since when was Al Gore a scientist?

concentrations in the atmosphere increased by 10% and now are .08% (so less than 1/10th of one percent) of the atmosphere. H20 is much higher, and not one single model accounts for variations in rainfall.

This iteration is the fourth global warming scare since 1880, and interspersed have been three for impending ice age. Joining in have been the population bomb (We've all died from starvation.), death of the oceans within 10 years (predicted in 1980), and more.

Junk science. The goal is the destruction of capitalism and global wealth redistribution.

Richard Lindzen asserts that negative feedbacks dominate the climate system, In articular,clouds are a negative feedback.
(your referenced article)

My referenced article (“Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback”)

refutes Lidzen's paper.

The Lindzen(and Choi)paper points out that the empirical evidence is the opposite of the assumptions made by the 11 most prominent climate models. You might say that that doesn't matter or that other things are more important. But refuted? No.

I'm waiting for Al Gore or Jim Hansen or any one one of the IPCC report authors to agree to a discussion in front of a live audience at which they present the evidence that would refute the "deniers." Numerous invitations to do this have been extended, but none have been accepted.

Hard to explain, don't you think? Any real scientist would be delighted to do it. And real scientists aren't afraid to find out that they are wrong, either.