FACTSHEET: Richard Lindzen
DETAILS
Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council.
Contributing Expert, Cato Institute.
Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute.
Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report.
He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's.
His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.
Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)
Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.
KEY QUOTES
11 June, 2001
"The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater."
Source: "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," WSJ 6/11/01
23 February, 2004
"We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapour, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not well correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide."
Source: "Canadian Reactions To Sir David King," Hill Times Ottawa 2/23/04
14 February, 2007
"To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."
Source: San Diego Union Tribune 2007
31 January, 2007
"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
Source: CNN transcript - Larry King Live 1/31/07
26 April, 2007
Lindzen described Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."
"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.
Professor Lindzen wants the debate on global warming kept alive. He also describes the Royal Society letter as a "disgrace," adding "they don't know what they're talking about."
Source: BBC News, "Science Climate Conflict Warms Up," April 26, 2007
13 May, 2006
Q: You're a meteorologist, what do you think scientists really agree on?
LINDZEN: "I think they agree that we've probably warmed about a half-degree centigrade in the last century. I think they agree that carbon dioxide has gone up 30 percent. I think we agree that carbon dioxide would tend to contribute warming. But there is no agreement that the warming we've seen is due to man. Moreover, the warming we've seen is much less than we would have expected on the basis of the models that produce alarm. "
Source: Fox News 'The Journal Editorial Report' May 13, 2006
11 June, 2001
"The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater."
Source: "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," WSJ 6/11/01
23 February, 2004
"We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapour, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not well correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide."
Source: "Canadian Reactions To Sir David King," Hill Times Ottawa 2/23/04
QUOTES
1 December, 2004
"It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures
are ‘record breakers' or even whether current temperatures are
‘unprecedented.’ These are simply red herrings designed to
obfuscate the fact that the change over the past century has
been small.
The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply
provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach
importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of
a degree and all of you know intuitively that that isn't very
much."
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)
12 April, 2006
"Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."
Source: Wall Street Journal Lindzen op-ed 2/12/06
21 April, 2007
Q: On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"
Lindzen: "I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend."
Source: National Post (Canada), "Relax, The Planet is Fine," April 21, 2007
1 December, 2004
"It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures
are ‘record breakers' or even whether current temperatures are
‘unprecedented.’ These are simply red herrings designed to
obfuscate the fact that the change over the past century has
been small.
The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply
provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach
importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of
a degree and all of you know intuitively that that isn't very
much."
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)
KEY DEEDS
2 May, 2001
Testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the scientific evidence of global warming was flawed and that the Kyoto Protocol would be ineffective and economically harmful.
Source: Transcript, Richard Lindzen's testimony before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 5/2/01
30 September, 2002
Lindzen was the main speaker for a congressional media briefing, sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition, entitled "On The Meaning of Global Warming Claims". He argued that scientists who claim that global warming is a problem are exploiting the public's lack of scientific knowledge.
Source: "MIT Climatologist Richard S. Lindzen To Address Cooler Heads Coalition" In Print @ CEI, 9/30/02
8 March, 2007
Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
2 May, 2001
Testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the scientific evidence of global warming was flawed and that the Kyoto Protocol would be ineffective and economically harmful.
Source: Transcript, Richard Lindzen's testimony before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 5/2/01
30 September, 2002
Lindzen was the main speaker for a congressional media briefing, sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition, entitled "On The Meaning of Global Warming Claims". He argued that scientists who claim that global warming is a problem are exploiting the public's lack of scientific knowledge.
Source: "MIT Climatologist Richard S. Lindzen To Address Cooler Heads Coalition" In Print @ CEI, 9/30/02
ORGANIZATIONS
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
Source: Annapolis Center website 3/04
Cato Institute
Source: Cato Institute website 4/04
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Bio Lindzen
George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)
Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org
SOURCES
Annapolis Center website 3/04
http://www.annapoliscenter.org
Annapolis Center website 3/04
http://www.annapoliscenter.org
Cato Institute website 4/04
http://www.cato.org
Cato Institute website 4/04
http://www.cato.org
Transcript, Richard Lindzen's testimony before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 5/2/01
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
Transcript, Richard Lindzen's testimony before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 5/2/01
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
"Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," WSJ 6/11/01
Op-Ed by Dr. Richard Lindzen
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
"Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty," WSJ 6/11/01
Op-Ed by Dr. Richard Lindzen
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
"MIT Climatologist Richard S. Lindzen To Address Cooler Heads Coalition" In Print @ CEI, 9/30/02
http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,03199.cfm
"MIT Climatologist Richard S. Lindzen To Address Cooler Heads Coalition" In Print @ CEI, 9/30/02
http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,03199.cfm
"Canadian Reactions To Sir David King," Hill Times Ottawa 2/23/04
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Canadian%20sir%20David%20King%20-%20Lindzen.htm
"Canadian Reactions To Sir David King," Hill Times Ottawa 2/23/04
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Canadian%20sir%20David%20King%20-%20Lindzen.htm
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website 5/04
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website 5/04
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/
Tech Central Bio Lindzen
http://www.techcentralstation.com/biolindzenrichard.html
Tech Central Bio Lindzen
http://www.techcentralstation.com/biolindzenrichard.html
Marshall Institute Website (2006)
"Climate Alarm- Where Does It Come From?"
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=264
Marshall Institute Website (2006)
"Climate Alarm- Where Does It Come From?"
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=264
San Diego Union Tribune 2007
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070214-9999-1b14sempra.html
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
CNN transcript - Larry King Live 1/31/07
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/lkl.01.html
Wall Street Journal Lindzen op-ed 2/12/06
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
BBC News, "Science Climate Conflict Warms Up," April 26, 2007
by Lesley Curwen
One Planet, BBC World Service
Excerpt:
In 2005 Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson defended funding such groups.
"We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved," he said.
"The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad."
This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."
"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.
Professor Lindzen wants the debate on global warming kept alive. He also describes the Royal Society letter as a "disgrace," adding "they don't know what they're talking about."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6595369.stm
Fox News 'The Journal Editorial Report' May 13, 2006
as reported by Media Matters, "Journal Editorial Report got facts wrong on global warming, again" May 16, 2006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605160009
National Post (Canada), "Relax, The Planet is Fine," April 21, 2007
Relax, the planet is fine
Money is partly to blame for the global warming hysteria, Professor Richard Lindzen says
Linda Frum, National Post
Published: Saturday, April 21, 2007
Excerpt of Interview:
Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?
A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.
Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?
A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.
Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?
A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.
Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?
A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.
Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?
A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.
Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?
A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.
Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?
A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.
Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?
A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.
If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.
Q Did you watch Al Gore ge this Academy Award?
A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.
Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.
A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.
Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
A Well, he's dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.
Q How cynical do you think Gore is?
A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.
Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.
A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.
Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?
A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.
Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"
A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.
Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?
A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ebd65ed3-80c2-441b-98ca-c4fbc7233e96&p=1