Beyond "Climategeddon" - from science education to solutions

If there is one subject *not* to brag about affiliation with MIT, it's climate science.
http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oil-and-gas

Lindzen accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect, that increasing greenhouse gases (like CO2) will cause a radiative forcing that, all other things being equal, will cause the surface to warm. He uses an odd measure of its effectiveness though, claiming that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a ‘2%’ increase in the greenhouse effect... On a planet with no greenhouse effect (but similar albedo) the upward LW would also be 240 W/m2, but... as soon as any feedbacks (particularly water vapour or ice albedo changes) kick in, that would increase. Due to the non-linearities in the system, you certainly can’t multiply the total greenhouse effect of ~33 C by 2% to get any sensible estimate of the climate sensitivity. So it’s not clear what relevance the ‘2%’ number has except to make the human additions to the greenhouse effect seem negligible.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/

Clearly, MIT's standards are low enough for the worst of all regularly-published climate scientists to be published there. It's also ironic that Lindzen's divergence from the scientific consensus is based on his failure to account for known non-linear factors.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost