Quality versus Quantity: Richard Lindzen takes on the Commissars of CO2 Alarm


Richard Lindzen is one of our most distinguished theoreticians of meteorology. His track record of innovation and detailed analyses is outstanding, and yet his voice has been all but drowned out by the hullaballoo being raised by a dramatically risen tide of newly-coined ‘climate scientists’ and associated political and financial opportunists. These are people who can see advantage in their different ways from promoting the notion that our collective well-being is under dire threat from climate disruption brought about by our emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. Both theory and evidence for this conjecture are quite thin on the ground (as shown, for example, in the NIPCC Reports), but it has been sweeping all before it in national and international affairs.

The crisis-conjecture has at least been impressing what might be called the political classes. A recent international opinion poll finds that ‘ordinary people’ do not regard it as either urgent or important compared with their other concerns. Such polls of course merely serve to fire the CO2 commissars up to do more to ‘get the message across’, or ‘raise awareness’, or sometimes in their fury seek authoritarian options (example 1, example 2) to impose their wishes upon us whether we the people like it or not.

The historian Bernie Lewin (2012) has argued that 1995 was the turning-point for the corruption of science associated with climate when the cracks and gaping holes in the case for our CO2 emissions beginning to dominate climate were artfully covered over by, in particular, Ben Santer and John Houghton. If he is right, then these two quite mediocre scientists helped keep the political world on a foolish and destructive path. Those who wish to see an end to capitalism, i.e. to lively markets and individual freedom, have seized upon this notion that our industrial and agricultural achievements, which came out of capitalist societies, are so harmful that capitalism itself must be ‘destroyed’. A recent manifestation from such people has been the witch-hunt instigated against the oil company Exxon in the fervent hope that incriminating documents are to be found showing how they malevolently concealed their knowledge of the supposed climate crisis. Lewin (2015) has neatly shown just how implausible this is.

Thus otherwise unremarkable scientists have helped energise insidious forces, and a great deal of political and financial opportunism. Fiascos such as bio-fuels and wind-farms have resulted. Fatuous policies devised at Kyoto have been touted as needed to ‘save the world’, and it was an earnest hope that such policies would be adopted that seemed to be Houghton’s main preoccupation in 1995.

Yet back in 1989, the far more talented and distinguished meteorologist, Lindzen of MIT, had already pointed out that the likely effect of projected increases in ambient CO2 in the remainder of the 20th century and through the 21st upon the climate system was a modest one. In 1989 he was reported as saying these words in a presentation at MIT:

“I argue that the greenhouse effect does not seem to be as significant as suggested. I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small, and I certainly feel that there is time and need for research before making major policy decisions.”

The behaviour of the climate system in the subsequent 26 years has been far more consistent with his perspective than with that of those who warned us of dreadful warming already underway, driven by our industrial and domestic emissions of CO2. Those emissions continued to rise, according to IPCC estimates, while the computed global mean temperature behaved in a decidedly un-alarming fashion. Similarly variation in sea-level, hurricane activity, and global ice levels have shown little sign of being driven by rising levels of ambient CO2.

The associated policy measures calling for massive expenditures at the expense of more urgent problems have long been known to be fatuous. Most recently, Bjorn Lomborg has shown just how preposterous it is to propose such waste in exchange for tiny impacts on global mean temperature as computed by the IPCC.  A handy summary of some of his points, and a link to the original paper, can be found at Bishop Hill:

# US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.

# EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.

# China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

# The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.

For a graphical illustration of these negligible impacts, and for further commentary on it see ‘COP21: a pointless virtue-signalling farce?’.

Meanwhile, last week in Texas, Lindzen is reported as saying these words:

Demonisation of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial. The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

Lindzen also [recalled] the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of the warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.

People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No. We are speaking of small changes – 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all.”

We have given a glimpse into Lindzen’s views in 1989 and in 2015. He also contributed a great deal in the intervening years to try to reach a wider public than would read his scientific papers. His calm scholarship, and reasonable criticisms of what has been going on in the public square both deserve far wider attention. Any government which had paid heed to them from the start would have no regrets today, and would have had increased opportunity to address more pressing problems.  It is nothing short of tragic that, instead, the Commissars of CO2 Alarm have had so much more impact on so many governments.

13 thoughts on “Quality versus Quantity: Richard Lindzen takes on the Commissars of CO2 Alarm

  1. Nobody needs to take your word for what Dr Lindzen has said nor any other hearsay evidence of his position. Anyone can watch lectures or an interview with Dr Lindzen by Googling: Youtube Lindzen

    URLs below:

    The URL for the interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srVeSmXFX-w

    I have not yet viewed the lecture but have read several of Dr Lindzen’s papers available on his MIT web page: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

    His scientific papers can be downloading from his web page or via Google Scholar. In Google enter: Scholar: Lindzen

    On the lowest line for any paper look for: Cited by X Related articles All X versions Cite Save

    Then click on All X versions and search for a free PDF file. What makes this free access possible is that some professors place papers online for their students.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I completely agree with Frederick Colbourne’s comment. That wonderful motto for science has been woefully ignored by the Royal Society in recent times: Nullius in Verba, but long may it be a guide for the rest of us!

    I should note, though, that there is a link to Lindzen’s papers in the first line of the post above, and at least a hint in the last paragraph that we know of a great deal more from him that is accessible to non-specialists in his field. Your link to that interview is very helpful here as an illustrative example.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. ” That wonderful motto for science has been woefully ignored by the Royal Society in recent times”

    Here’s Roger Harrabin on Lord May:

    “I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”


    Liked by 1 person

  4. Richard Lindzen may be intelligent but has a “deep contrarian streak” according to his former grad students.

    That’s why it’s such a payback to see Lindzen’s theory of QBO demolished. What goes around comes around as the saying goes.


    Lindzen will weep when he considers all the years that went to waste, as he wasn’t able to see what was hiding in plain sight.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “Lindzen will weep when he considers all the years that went to waste, as he wasn’t able to see what was hiding in plain sight.”


    Liked by 1 person

  6. The comment from WebHubTelescope provides an interesting, if still wearisome, glimpse into the doings of those who see themselves, I presume, as some kind of specialist squadron of footsoldiers whose contribution to ‘the cause’ is to sprinkle offensive comments on blogs where that cause is held in question. Most commonly using a nom-de-plume.

    At Bishop Hill, they have turned up from time to strut and fret their noisome ways. One feature is that they seem to see their comments as being like sharp spears which pierce the pretensions of the sceptical. But yet they come across as smart-alecs with personality defects – the kind of person you would go out of your way to avoid whenever you could since they have the ability to demean and degrade conversations with whatever their current obsessions / catchphrases may be.

    Some think they should be engaged with, and their comments examined to expose their nature further e.g. to highlight their poor manners, or flaky logic, or low relevance, or whatever. Others think they should be ignored, since any critical response can so readily trigger a fast and furious jumble of more comments. While that can be amusing or informative on occasion, I think I mostly fall into the latter camp, generally on the ‘life is too short’ principle. As a further confession, I do sometimes feel myself cheering the engagers on, from the shadows so speak. My immediate reaction to Catweazle’s ‘drivel’ reaction was a simple ‘spot-on!’ for instance.

    So, this will no doubt continue. Some will engage, some ignore, and some just express their disdain for these troubled people and their malevolent ways. Maybe like me, you will find yourself doing any one of these from time to time despite whichever way your general inclination lies.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Wonderfully, said, John. I find it amusing that Mr. Paul R. Pukite thinks his submitted to Physical Review Letters paper overturns multiple already peer-reviewed papers and a concept that is widely accepted throughout the science community, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Quasi-biennial_oscillation) is over 40 years old, and, come now, Lindzen won awards from the AGU and AMS for his contribution to the sciences of atmospheric tides: http://www2.ametsoc.org/awards/search_results.cfm , http://honors.agu.org/winners/richard-s-lindzen/ .

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pukite has a strong track record of rather personal attacks on respected scientists. They often center of trivial or unimportant points. He has been banned at a lot of blogs for this behavior.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. “You don’t like to hear what we have to say”

    Actually Pukite, I very much doubt if anyone gives a flying dog’s bollock what a serially banned troll like you has to say.

    To describe you as irrelevant would be fulsome praise.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s