How honest to you think Richard Lindzen is?

One of climate scientist and 'skeptic' Richard Lindzen's favorite arguments is that "we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far" if the AGW theory and IPCC climate sensitivity range are correct. The way Lindzen makes this claim is to say that we're over 80%... show more One of climate scientist and 'skeptic' Richard Lindzen's favorite arguments is that "we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far" if the AGW theory and IPCC climate sensitivity range are correct.

The way Lindzen makes this claim is to say that we're over 80% of the way to the radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric CO2 (by adding the effects of CO2 and other human greenhouse gas emissions), so the planet should have warmed about 2°C by now if the IPCC is correct, rather than the 0.8°C we've observed.

Problem is that this claim ignores both the thermal inertia of the oceans and all negative radiative forcings, particularly aerosols. Lindzen attempts to justify neglecting these factors by saying thermal inertia is too small to make up the difference, and aerosols have both cooling and warming (via black carbon) effects. He says the uncertainty is too large, so he just treats the net aerosol + black carbon forcing as zero.

It's true that there is a large uncertainty for aerosol + black carbon effects. The problem is that neglecting them as Lindzen does is treating them as if they have zero forcing with zero uncertainty. I went through the calculation, carrying through all uncertainties including those for aerosols, black carbon, and thermal inertia. I found that we "should have seen" 0 to 2°C warming with a most likely value of 1°C, which is quite close to the 0.8°C we've observed thus far.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-case-s...

It strikes me as very intellectually dishonest that Lindzen mentions these factors, but then completely ignores them in his calculation. As a result, he arrives at an incorrect conclusion. Then he writes a bunch of media articles which are published on "skeptic" websites like WattsUpWithThat, whose audience doesn't question Lindzen's faulty calculations or conclusions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-case-s...

What do you think about this sort of behavior? Is it dishonest? Justifiable? Is it an honest mistake?
Update: jim z - since you have such a superior understanding of the issue than lil' old me, why don't you explain why I'm wrong and Lindzen is right?

I await your response with baited breath.
Update 2: thanks bucket. By the way, obviously a typo in the question, which should read "do you think" not "to you think"!
7 answers 7