Prof Lindzen was speaking within the walls of the UK legislature, so he has to distil the message to that audience (not that there were many MPs in attendance – sadly – I was there), but I understand he met privately with a cabinet minister afterwards.
On you closing remarks.
1. “Lindzen’s persona and appearance, that reeks of scientific gravitas”
It doesn’t matter one hoot what he looks like, if what he is presenting is rational argument based on observation, then he could be humpty dumpty for all I care. What is good though is that he knows that facts and science will speak for itself and doesn’t need the huffing and blowing that we see from Mr. Mann, Gore or Monbiot. Which reminds me, Al has been very, very quiet recently. I wonder why?
2. “His argument in the first half of the talk is very effective, taking down the public statements by the NAS folk.”
Presenting reasoned science and rational argument is the most effective, but you still have to tailor your talk to the intended audience, which in this case, was one looking for political change.
3. “His scientific argument in the second half of the talk is appealing in that it relies on data and theory (rather than models).”
All scientists should rely on the data. Questioning must be to examine whether the methods of collecting the data and the interpretation of it is flawed and needs improving to strengthen the data. This is because the interpretation is often coloured by preconceptions, whether from training or experience, and that’s to be expected, even from Prof Lindzen. He does have appealing reasoned argument, but like all scientists, his argument must be continually tested against the data.
4. “Keeping policy and politics out of his scientific argument”
In one sense, yes, of course, but we have to remember here that the whole purpose of his visit was to inject science INTO politics. His scientific argument must therefore necessarily be targeted at the politicians and political policies that have been enacted in response to the AGW claims, which means framing the science to address and counter unsound science and the consequential political interpretation.
In many senses, the AGW debate is past science and now mostly political, but we should never stop striving to (i) improve the science with new discovery, which is why the latest work of Henrik Svensmark and his colleagues in the Danish National Space Institute is so important, (ii) do everything we can to make sure good science achieved by the proper scientific method is heard and understood by the politicians, and (iii) expose bad science and those who would demean science by ‘attacking the messenger’ to disguise their lack of observational data and a reasoned argument such that politicians cannot be comfortable using them as electoral tickets.