Nine of the ten loudest climate-denying scientists tied to Exxon

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a great debate between Richard Lindzen and Andrew Dessler for anyone who is genuinely interested in the science of GW.

[Poptech 0]

Yes it is a great debate as you will notice how alarmist's have to resort to smears when they cannot debate the science. Dr. Lindzen also points out that the errors in his 2009 paper were corrected in his recent one,

On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications (PDF)

(Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2010)

- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

But Dessler is so dishonest he failed to check.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Poptech

[Zero Sum 305]

Again a blog, nothing from a reputable news source. Those fees were discussed in the reputable news piece I posted from the Boston Globe. None of those funded his research nor changed his position on AGW.

You also seem confused as Dr. Lindzen supports AGW just not AGW Alarm. You seem a little slow on this topic.

Can you show me this "scientific analysis" and whom undertook it?

It seems you are a scientist that has the necessary scientific debating skills to take the points, one by one. By all means. If you think the science is fraudulent, address the individual points that make this so, on their merit. It seems you have taken some time to prepare talking points on this.

[Zero Sum 305]

The use of vocabulary is a bit... formulaic.