Selected quotes from three House and Senate testimonies by Richard Lindzen in 1991 – 1997 Continue reading Richard Lindzen, Congress Testimonies, 1991-1997
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.”
Science x Politics: Climatism and Eugenics
Eugenics is the closest historical parallel to the climatist pseudo-science. Richard Lindzen explored similarities between both in a book chapter Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics (1995). His conclusion: Continue reading Science x Politics: Climatism and Eugenics
Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 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
Analogy to the Paradoxical Origin of Climate Alarmism
The following parable accompanies my article The Paradoxical Origin of Climate Alarmism in American Thinker.
Once upon a time there was a healthy, wealthy, and generous man. Let’s call him Sam. Sam is honest and brave, but slightly naïve and hypochondriac. One day, Sam found a small discolored spot on his skin. He went to the doctor, who examined the spot and told Sam he was fine, but that he should do annual checkups. Continue reading Analogy to the Paradoxical Origin of Climate Alarmism
How Enviros Corrupted Science (unexpected witness)
The now infamous Naomi Oreskes eviscerated climate models in 1994. But she has not stopped then. In her 1998 paper Evaluation (Not Validation) of Quantitative Models, she disclosed a wider pattern of computer models being either misrepresented or deliberately produced to fit predetermined agendas. The paper was not focused on the climate change studies, but showed the fraud behind The Limits to Growth (1972) and political pressure on scientists from EPA. Continue reading How Enviros Corrupted Science (unexpected witness)
What is rising – Sea Level or Waterfront Prices?
Do Democratic Party supporters believe in Climatism themselves? I mean, believe strongly enough to invest their own money based on the so-called “settled science”? An obligatory Climatist belief is that “climate change” will cause a rapid sea level rise and the flooding of low-lying lands, including most beachfront or waterfront properties. Another alarmist claim is an impending increase in hurricanes and storms. Since the majority of owners of waterfront properties are either Democrats or RINOs, if they are true believers they should be selling, and the prices should be falling, sinking well below the prices of similar non-waterfront properties. A house is a valuable investment, but a flooded and storm ravaged one loses all its value. But the real trend is exactly the opposite. Continue reading What is rising – Sea Level or Waterfront Prices?
“Thirteen Agencies, One Vision”
Can you guess whose slogan that might be? Burundi Council of Ministers — wrong answer. A band of hallucinating patients in a psychiatric hospital — wrong again.
This is the United States Global Change Research Program! Its full slogan: Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science. Among the participating thirteen agencies are the Department of Defense, NASA, NSF, the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Interior.
“Thirteen Agencies, One Delusion” would be more accurate.