Phil writes:
[ QUOTE ]
have yet to explain why people like Richard Lindzen can happily get his face plastered over the media, embarassing his institution, while suffering no reprisal. Yet neither he nor any of the other detractors have published any scientific findings which cast doubt on the current interpretation of sun caused warming, let alone disprove it. The one paper he published years ago, on the Iris Effect (mentioned by submariner) has been shown to be false, and even he has since said it was wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
The linked article by Lindzen was published in 2006.
Lindzen Writes....
[ QUOTE ]
When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound like he is saying his study is wrong here to me.
You have misrepresented this in a disingenous way, Phil.
A quick google also turned up this blog. A little research would have done you good before saying that Lindzen has recanted his blashpemy.
Second Edit:
This is a link to a presentation on a Harvard physics server of a lecture given by Lindzen in January 2007.
Pretty heavy arguement coming from someone who, according to you, has admitted he's wrong.