Does Richard Lindzen still believe that the water vapor feedback is strongly negative?

Here's an html version of Lindzen's corrected paper, though as Dana notes, it hasn't been accepted nor published:

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:rI08lhXG0TkJ...

Lindzen and Choi's method doesn't measure individual feedbacks, only the net feedback, so I'm not sure those papers are the best reference for answering this question. I think in general Lindzen has recognized that there is evidence indicating a strongly positive water vapor feedback, but views clouds as the saving grace. This is really the last refuge of the "insensitive climate" crowd because, despite Dessler's latest attempt, observations of the long-term cloud feedback really don't exist, and those estimations that do are fraught with uncertainty. More and more studies are pointing towards positive, however.

In any case, past climatic variations seem to preclude such an insensitive system.

I think Lindzen believes the cloud feedback is strongly negative. Observational evidence clearly shows the water vapor feedback is positive, so it's getting pretty hard to deny that.

I think Lindzen is basically on board with Spencer's "internal radiative forcing" hypothesis whereby some unknown mechanism causes cloud cover change, which in turn changes the Earth's reflectivity, thus causing warming or cooling. It's a very flawed hypothesis, but it seems to be the best the "skeptics" can come up with. I've got a blog post on the subject in review right now. Keep an eye on Skeptical Science for it in the next few days (Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability).

There's also increasing observational evidence that the cloud feedback is positive.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-fe...

By the way, you can't get a copy of Lindzen and Choi's revised paper, because it still hasn't been accepted/published after being promised for something like a year. Which is a good sign that the reviewers thought it was poor quality.

His updated paper of Lindzen and Choi still shows a negative feedback.

Edit: Really Dana. How do you know it is bad? Are you a climate expert? Have you read the paper? If you had, are you able to determine for yourself if the merits are good or bad? The revised paper addressed all of Trenbreth's criticisms. How do you know that it is not stuck down because a member of the hockey team is one of the reviewers is "going to town" by blocking a paper that he disagrees with? Btw, "going to town" is a phrase from the climategate emails, were one such reviewer blocked a skeptic paper.