Yes basically just wild speculation on my part. I am a scientist (you may have guessed that, because of the ease with which I could "throw around some science words") but I never worked on global warming. I have only read a few papers on the topic, and, as I said, Lindzens early papers are the only ones I studied in depth and did some rough calculations to see if they made sense to me. I have read a number of other more recent AGW papers, naturally, but I didn't put much time or effort into them. I have published in photo chemistry, though I'm not a photo chemist or physicist I collaborated with them, so I do understand the greenhouse effect and its photo physics -- again making it easy to throw those words around. After a lifetime of this business you tend to learn a few things you didn't intend to learn, such as not jumping to conclusions prematurely.
Oh, and I am fast becoming convinced that much of the early work on AGW is seriously flawed, but not entirely invalid. The good work is just now coming to light. I think, however, I am rather rapidly coming around to Lindzen's early assessment of Hansen.
You guys got me more interested in a topic I really had only a passing interest in previously. Once I think I have more or less figured something out, I will lose interest in it. I would pursue developing an electrical equivalent circuit for a water-CO2 model if I had a sharper, younger mind than mine to collaborate with. That does interest me!
