This time, I think you have clearly shown that you have absolutely no clue.
You say "Linndzen's PRACTICAL data clearly shows CO2 is nowhere near having the effect the alarmist models suggest" (sic). Then you go on to say: "This is a very profound result in main part due to its experimental nature."
Lindzen is a mathematician, who builds mathematical models to explain experimental data.
ERBE data he used in the article you are referring to, e.g. "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data" by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, is not "his" data.
If you want to learn what ERBE is you might want to check: http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/ERBE.html
So you have just shown that you cannot tell the difference between an article reporting new experimental data, and a theoretical article that attempts to explain it.
Re-read your post and you might realize (not that you would ever admit it) how little sense it makes now when you realize it is not "HIS" data and the article is about mathematical model for existing data.
