Richard Lindzen Provides Global Warming Testimony On Capital Hill

On Wednesday, November 17th, the House Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing regarding anthropogenic global warming, which is, of course, the so-called threat of our lifetimes, the end times for man, etc and so on, if you listen to climate alarmists. Thankfully, they devoted a whopping two hours to the most important issue facing the planet. The testimony is available along the left side of the webpage at the aforementioned link. Dr. Lindzen provides the beat down

I wish to thank the House Committee on Science and Technology for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change –or as it was once referred to: global warming. The written testimony is, of course, far more detailed than my oral summary will be. In the summary, 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 CO2is 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.

Dr. Lindzen continues on, and I recommend that everyone, especially you believers, read the whole thing.

On page 7, he writes

Virtually by definition, nothing in science is ‘incontrovertible’ –especially in a primitive and complex field as climate. ‘Incontrovertibility’ belongs to religion where it is referred to as dogma.

And the climate alarmists basically treat the issue as a religion. Later in the PDF, page 24, he actually refers to the science as a quasi-religious issue. Notice, though, that he calls climate science a primitive and complex field.

Page 16

However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt. These days we go even further, and decide that the best way to prevent broken eggs is to ban dirt kicking.

Dr. Lindzen also spends much time on the actual science, and we it is not “alarming” and “catastrophes” are not on the way.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Richard Lindzen Provides Global Warming Testimony On Capital Hill”

  1. John Ryan says:

    here is an article I urge everyone to read. It is about Dr. Lindzen he has received 2500 dollars per day fees from the oil and gas industry. Every major scientific soxiety on the planet disagrees with him.How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?

    Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of Sciences, which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a press release released in 2005 which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It is signed by:

    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
    Royal Society of Canada, Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
    Academié des Sciences, France
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
    Indian National Science Academy, India
    Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
    Science Council of Japan, Japan
    Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
    Royal Society, United Kingdom
    National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

  2. John Ryan says:

    the full expose on your Dr Lindzrn is here http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
    Teach any bets on whether 2010 will be in the top 5 hottest years ? I think it will be, even though ummm it smowed in Baghdad (as it did in 2008 also) and it was cold in the UK in August.
    NO CONSENSUS ????
    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

  3. Interesting. All you’ve done is provide ad hominem attacks without refuting his testimony. Figures. And actually proves him correct that this whole issue is one of politics, not science

  4. gitarcarver says:

    All Ryan has is ad hominem attacks. The amount of money that Lindzen supposedly received was back in 1991 – not recently.

    Since 2005, we have come to know that the data upon which the statement Ryan references was fraudulent. We know that AGW proponents recognize that the data doesn’t support them and have resulted to the type of attacks made by Ryan. We know that NASA hid and lost data. We know that temperature recording stations are faulty in data.

    We know that the IPCC climate report from the UN that was a supposed “consensus” was anything but and in fact, the main authors disagreed with the conclusions of the report. The IPCC falsified the report to say they agreed with it, but they did not.

    So Ryan, when you talk about the integrity of one person, at least acknowledge that there is little integrity on this issue from people like you.

    By the way, still driving your polluter?

  5. Dan Pangburn says:

    The factors that resulted in the 20th century global temperature run-up have been discovered. The contribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide is between small and insignificant.

    A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy. See the equation, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).

    The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9979 access attempts in the last 7 days.