Category Archives: Richard Lindzen

Lindzen: Global Warming and Irrelevance of Science

Excerpts from 2015 essay Global Warming and Irrelevance of Science by Prof. Richard Lindzen.

In many fields, governments have a monopoly on the support of scientific research….

…, the powers that be invent the narrative independently of the views of even cooperating scientists. It is, in this sense, that the science becomes irrelevant. This was certainly the case in the first half of the twentieth century, where we just have to look at Lysenkoism [1] in the former Soviet Union, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics throughout the western world [2], as well as, in the 1960s, the unfounded demonization of DDT [3]. Each phenomenon led to millions of deaths. And, in each case, the scientific community was essentially paralyzed, if not actually complicit. …

The implausibility or even outright silliness whereby global warming became global warming catastrophism (sometimes referred to as CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is so extensive that one hardly knows where to begin. …
Continue reading Lindzen: Global Warming and Irrelevance of Science

Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links

Personal pages: MIT, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute.  Articles and essays in WattsUpWithThat. Examples:

How to Discuss CAGW (Lecture in Norway, 2015)

Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm

Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can’t Afford to Lose by Stephen H. Schneider (1997), Reviewed by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT (1998). Few quotes:

“One would think it would be possible to present a coherent argument and discussion in a small book (154 pages plus 17 pages of introduction and preface), but Stephen Schneider fails.”

“As best I can tell, Schneider is trying to endorse both the study of the Earth as a system and the integrated assessment of potential damage from possible global warming. Schneider’s prejudice is revealed when he presents the Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren formula, I=PAT: Environmental Impact equals Population times Affluence per capita times Technology used. This is in the part of the introduction where Schneider introduces population, affluence and technology as “the enemy”. Here he also informs us that an altered climate is a “damaged climate.” Continue reading Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links

Richard Lindzen on the Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992)

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus – an article by Richard Lindzen from 1992, still relevant today! Some quotes (emphasis is mine):

“By early 1989 the popular media were declaring that “all scientists” agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential. By the fall of 1989 some media were becoming aware that there was controversy. Cries followed from environmentalists that skeptics were receiving excessive exposure. – Same as today,  except that the “skeptics” are  called “deniers” now. Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992)

Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006

On persecution of scientists, dissenting from con science of climate alarmism.  Excerpts from Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, 2006.

Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm … Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. [In 2006 – AH] Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006

Lindzen, 2001: Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support

By that time, the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change already had many Al Gore minions.  Nevertheless, it concluded that “the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.”  Richard Lindzen was a member of the NAS panel and a Lead Author in WGI of IPCC for its Third Assessment Report (TAR). Following are excerpts from his commentary on the NAS report (WSJ, 2001).

Continue reading Lindzen, 2001: Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support

How “Climate Science” has Taken over the Science

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Richard Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Originally published on November 29, 2008; revised on September 21, 2012. In this article Richard Lindzen (a member of the National Academy of Sciences and seven other scientific societies and academies), lifts the veil on the internal workings of American scientific institutions to show their capture by climate alarmism prior to 2008, and he mentions some individual culprits by their names.  Examples (emphasis and links are mine throughout the article):

Continue reading How “Climate Science” has Taken over the Science

Richard Lindzen: Iron Triangle and Iron Rice Bowl, 2013

Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents, Richard Lindzen.

The central idea of the article is a vicious feedback loop: Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements => Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist declarations => Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money => [a larger number of scientists and pseudo-]Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous [or false] statements …

One precedent was “Lysenkoism”:

In the Soviet Union, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898- 1976) promoted the Lamarckian view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Continue reading Richard Lindzen: Iron Triangle and Iron Rice Bowl, 2013

Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.

“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001

From Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001

“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001