Deniers: Richard Lindzen

Jump to: navigation, search


This Page Is Currently Under Construction And Will Be Available Shortly, Please Visit Reserve Copy Page



Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.<br /> Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.<br />

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. <br />

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.)<br />

Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. <br />

Key Quotes

11 June, 2001<br />

"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." <br /> Source: "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty" (pdf), Wall Street Journal, 6/11/01<br />

23 February, 2004<br />

"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."<br /> Source: "Canadian Reactions To Sir David King", Hill Times Ottawa, 2/23/04 (via<br />

13 May, 2006<br />

"Q: You're a meteorologist, what do you think scientists really agree on?" <br /> 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." <br /> Source: 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.<br />

14 February, 2007<br />

"To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science." <br />Source: San Diego Union Tribune, 2/14/07]<br />

31 January, 2007<br />

"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."<br /> Source: CNN transcript - Larry King Live, 1/31/07<br />

26 April, 2007<br />

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." <br /> Source: BBC News, "Science Climate Conflict Warms Up", April 26, 2007<br />

10 September 2007<br />

Linzden testified before a special committee of the European Parliament (The Temporary Committee on Climate Change), stating that: “Never has an area of physical science been subjected to such a volume of has climate science in connection with global warming.” He criticised the IPCC's research on climate change, saying that "only about 30% of the surface warming since 1979 can be attributed to global warming of any sort...The long chains of inference involved in projecting catastrophic consequences are […] grossly unlikely." <br /> Source: A "serious and imminent" threat: MEPs and experts debate global warming, European Parliament special committee meeting (The Temporary Committee on Climate Change), September 10, 2007<br />


1 December, 2004<br />

"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." <br /> Source: "Alarm- Where Does It Come From?", George C. Marshall Institute Website<br />

12 April, 2006<br />

"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."<br /> Source: Lindzen op-ed, Wall Street Journal, 4/12/06]<br />

21 April, 2007<br />

<u>Q</u>: "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?" <br /> <u>Lindzen</u>: "I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend." <br /> Source: "Relax, The Planet is Fine", National Post (Canada), April 21, 2007<br />

Key Deeds

2 May, 2001<br />

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. <br /> Source: Transcript, Richard Lindzen's testimony before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 5/2/01 (pdf).<br />

30 September, 2002<br />

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. <br /> Source: "MIT Climatologist Richard S. Lindzen To Address Cooler Heads Coalition", CEI website. To see his presentation, click here (PowerPoint document, click here for the html version).<br />

8 March, 2007<br />

Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"<br /> Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)<br />

10 September 2007<br />

Testified before a special committee of the European Parliament (The Temporary Committee on Climate Change)<br /> Source: A "serious and imminent" threat: MEPs and experts debate global warming, European Parliament special committee meeting (The Temporary Committee on Climate Change), September 10, 2007<br />

December 12th, 2007

Lindzen signed an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations alleging that that the "UN climate conference is taking the World in entirely the wrong direction." It claimed that the process resulting in the IPCC report was flawed, and that if Global Warming really was human-caused that energy would be better spent trying to mitigate the damage it would do, as opposed to trying to stop it. The letter was signed by 100 so-called "Prominent Scientists."<br /> Source:Open Letter taken from Science and Public Policy website, 12.18.07


Annapolis Centre<br /> Source: Annapolis Center website<br />

Cato Institute<br /> Source: Various articles and reviews, Cato Institute website<br />

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station<br /> Source: Tech Central Bio, Richard S. Lindzen<br />

George C. Marshall Institute<br /> Source: George C. Marshall Institute Website<br />

Heartland Institute<br /> Source: Heartland Institute -<br />

Personal tools