Professor Richard Lindzen is one of the world’s greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest. What he doesn’t know about the science behind climate change probably isn’t worth knowing. But even if you weren’t aware of all this, even if you’d come to the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
Here is how he began his speech, which was organised on behalf of the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act:
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
For the rest Delingpole proceeds to gloat.
OK, so we have an MIT Professor who has claimed that more CO2 does not lead to a warmer climate, so that’s it then, the climate change folks can pack their bags and go home, the panic is over … right?
Oh wait perhaps not.
For Lindzen, none of this is new, he has long opposed the conventional consensus on global warming, and there are relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as he is.
Here is a 2009 New York Times article that portrays him as the lone voice standing out against climate change …
Critics fault him for professing unwarranted sureness in a field of research rife with uncertainty. Many say he is simply wrong.
In science it is important to understand the discussion that is taking place, and to also understand what the current consensus is and why that consensus prevails. Lindzen is well-respected and so he is part of that discussion, but his one lone voice does not represent the entire conversation, just a fringe skeptical view far from the current consensus.
Why would he be on the fringe? Is this the same guy who back in 2001 denied that smoking causes lung cancer? (yep see top of page-2) Could it possibly be the $2,500 a day he has received for his frequent “consulting” services rendered to oil and gas interests for him to officially deny anthropogenic global warming? no that cannot possibly be the reason.
The truly gross dishonesty taking place here is that Delingpole, a staunch climate change denier, has cherry-picked this one lone voice that confirms his views and touts it alone in isolation as if it represented the current scientific consensus, when in fact it does no such thing. That is not science, nor is it honest.
Don’t be conned.
Links
- You can read more about Lindzen here on SourceWatch