Your link, actually a SkepticalScience article lists the following as a rebuttal to Lindzen:<quoted text>You can't help tina[always in small letters], who knows nothing, with your bs.
Read to learn from:
I get 40% since pre-industrial levels and I come up with a 1.5°C rise for a 3.2°C climate sensitivity for CO2 and the 0.7°C over the last 160 years is what has happened. Did Lindzen claim CO2 is up 100 percent? Why would he do that? Why does Nuccitelli come up with 76 percent?CO2-equivalent has not increased by 100%, but rather by about 76% above pre-industrial levels.
[H]uman aerosol emissions, which have a cooling effect.
3°C is the equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount the planet will eventually warm once it reaches a new energy balance. The planet currently has an energy imbalance (mostly stored as heat in the oceans), so there is still more warming “in the pipeline”
Oh yes the aerosol argument. Nuccitelli forgot to make the volcano argument for why temperatures went up in the 1920s and all the other dog ate my homework bullshit scenarios dreamed up to support his line of bullshit.
And finally the pipeline argument. Temperatures go up and down daily and seasonally but superimposed on this is some sort of a lag do to the claimed warming of the oceans. You know those oceans that the ARGO floats said is cooling until Dr. Josh Willis adjusted the data and installed a computer model and now ARGO shows warming. And as I've pointed out repeatedly, the IPCC tells us in Chapter five of their AR4 report that the ocean warmed to a depth of 700 meters by 0.10°C since the 1960s. And I've further pointed out that the ocean isn't going to warm anything more than that 0.1°C. I don't know how much warming Dr. Willis fudge factored into the ARGO system but it can't be more than a fraction of a degree and you guys need more than that to get your scare story to work.