Is Richard Lindzen intellectually dishonest?

Dessler (2010) quantified the cloud feedback by relating changes in outgoing radiation to surface temperature anomalies (at zero time lag). He concluded that clouds trap additional energy as the surface warms. Roy Spencer has objected to this study’s main conclusion. Contrary to Dessler's beliefs, Spencer... show more Dessler (2010) quantified the cloud feedback by relating changes in outgoing radiation to surface temperature anomalies (at zero time lag). He concluded that clouds trap additional energy as the surface warms.

Roy Spencer has objected to this study’s main conclusion. Contrary to Dessler's beliefs, Spencer suggests that variations in cloud-cover caused significant temperature changes over the last decade. Thus, Spencer believes that Dessler should perform his feedback parameter diagnosis at some time lag between the radiative flux and temperature data.

Richard Lindzen recently expressed support for Spencer’s theory and suggested that Dessler should take time lags into account.

I find this rather bizarre. Lindzen and Choi (2009) only addressed ZERO-time lag relationships, which is essentially what Dessler did. Thus, if clouds caused significant temperature variations between 2000 and 2010, Lindzen’s previous conclusions would be erroneous.

Why would Lindzen support a theory that is contradictory to his own? Does this confirm that he is intellectually dishonest? Furthermore, are there any skeptical scientists that Lindzen does not approve of?
Update: @ Moe The Earth has currently warmed .8º C, as Dana notes. If carbon dioxide concentrations were held constant at today's levels, we could expect another .6º C of warming due to the climate system's thermal inertia. In this hypothetical scenario, the Earth's equilibrium temperature would be 1.4º C higher than... show more @ Moe

The Earth has currently warmed .8º C, as Dana notes. If carbon dioxide concentrations were held constant at today's levels, we could expect another .6º C of warming due to the climate system's thermal inertia. In this hypothetical scenario, the Earth's equilibrium temperature would be 1.4º C higher than during preindustrial times. Therefore, ABOUT half of the total warming is "in the pipeline".

Dana's claim is not intellectually dishonest.
5 answers 5