[voice_of_reason]

Dyson is a renowned physicist interested in climate science. I believe that his physics/math skills and general intelligence allow him to be quite competent in climate issues.

Lindzen retired only in 2013. I don't see how this makes his opinion about CAGW less valuable, especially given the fact that he was skeptical about CAGW hypothesis for a long time.

"Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better." - where's the proof that she is a "shill"?

Roy Spencer is a renowned scientist in my book: "Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center."

Again, where is the proof that he is oil industry's shill?

[mturmon]

To my knowledge, Freeman Dyson has no peer reviewed research contributions in the climate literature. That should be the price of entry, otherwise there is nothing of substance to critique.

[dang]

Please don't do this here.

[voice_of_reason]

There are climate scientists who are proponents of CAGW and who believe in creationism: http://www.christianpost.com/news/climate-change-evangelical...

Does it automatically make CAGW hypothesis wrong? Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?

[grasshopperpurp]

"Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?"

I was speaking specifically of Spencer, and, yes, it calls into question everything he professes.