How honest to you think Richard Lindzen is?

Nice work on your latest SkepticalScience article. While the reality is best estimate of net aerosol forcing is significantly negative with a fair amount of uncertainty range, Lindzen's argument clearly implies it's zero and with no uncertainty, something not supported by any remotely logical and objective analysis. Similar problem with the ocean time lag argument. Lindzen's argument implies no lag with no uncertainty.

I disagree with VMM. Lindzen is qualified enough and has indicated he understands these issues, yet he continues to make the same bogus argument repeatedly in the public realm. Clearly dishonest. Monckton is dishonest as well, but he's also an unqualified hack, and hacks can simply be ignorant and completely blinded by a push for fame. Check out the recent BBC documentary featuring him. There's a moment in the film where Monckton receives a letter from a number of scientists explaining where his arguments are wrong. He just stares at it with a look of mixed emotions - sadness, confusion, resentment, denial. Lindzen receiving such a letter would probably only glance over it briefly, already know broadly what the contents were, since he knows his argument is complete bunk, and he entirely knows why.

Richard Lindzen has officially been demoted from a skeptic to a denialist. This is partly due to the fact that the overwhelming evidence for global warming makes it difficult for an informed individual, never mind a scientist, to be a skeptic. Roy Spencer is also running out of room to be a skeptic. Stay tuned for his decision to become either a realist or a denialist.

It appears to me that Lindzen is honest in his presentation of the information, and he clearly defines his parameters, of ignoring aerosols, and the thermal inertia of the water covering the earth, both salt and fresh. I agree with him that statistically the contribution of aerosol/black carbon effects are probably not significant and are certainly uncertain, although you seem quite certain that your calculations will allow that significance to be adequately measured. I would suggest the application of the one way ANOVA statistical analysis, which appears to me likely to apply, that is if the variances are equal and normally distributed. This analysis should allow you to evaluate the significance of the two factors from a statistical standpoint, to place a value on their significance.

My impression: Lindzen is disingenuous. His simplistic reasoning on climate response is beneath his abilities, as you point out.

He has also insisted that increasing temperature would decrease water vapor in the air is bizarre. Certainly not supported by evidence, as Real Climate points out, concluding:

"So in summary, the data and the models both agree that not only is the water vapour feedback positive, it is quite close to the value suggested by the models – Lindzen’s insistence on the converse (while it has generated increased attention on the subject) seems increasingly perverse."

Real Climate also points out that Lindzen speaks to laymen without differentiating between his belief and scientific finding. Shades of S. F. Singer.

I trust what Lindzen says more than I trust what Monkton says...

That isn't saying much, of course.

I think that Lindzen's motivations are political and economic and he makes his scientific opinions fit those. I would say that he's intentionally intellectually dishonest (as opposed to inadvertently, which is certainly prevalent in this subject) as opposed to outright malicious dishonesty which is where I would put Monkton on the scale.

_

Try surfing around at realclimate.org for scientific particulars. As for the pandering to denialists, only his psychoanalyst knows (maybe).

It is interesting that you chose to use the word honest instead of correct. He is honest and correct. You may disagree but that is because you don't understand the issue very well IMO