MIT prof: “there won’t be much warming due to CO2”

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail ^ | February 25, 2012 | Don Surber

[Mustang Driver]

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, 72, an atmospheric physicist at MIT, contributed to the IPCC reports of 1995 and 2001 and this week went to Parliament in Britain to address a seminar arranged by the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act. James Delingpole of the Telegraph was delighted and praised the professor’s speech, which can be read in whole here.

From James Delingpole: “Dick Lindzen does not need to raise his voice. He does not use hyperbole. In a tone somewhere between weariness and withering disdain, he lets the facts speak for themselves. And the facts, as he understands them, are devastating.”

Delingpole highlighted this from the speech:

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.

I thought his conclusion of his speech (which was punctuated with charts and scientific formulations that I do not understand):

[logitech]

Obviously the Dee-nigh-ers have gotten to him.

[Wingy]

What oil company paid him off?

[steelyourfaith]

James Delingpole:

Lindzen totally pwns the alarmists

Professor Richard Lindzen: awesome

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.

Dick Lindzen does not need to raise his voice. He does not use hyperbole. In a tone somewhere between weariness and withering disdain, he lets the facts speak for themselves. And the facts, as he understands them, are devastating.

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.

You can read a full version of his speech here. The Bishop has it up here.

But don't take my word for it. Simon Carr of the Independent (not a publication hitherto noted for its rampant AGW scepticism) was sufficiently impressed to write a blog on the subject headlined Is catastrophic global warming, like Millennium Bug, a mistake?

I think we know the answer to that one, eh?

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Paladin2]

See Page 23

[vetvetdoug]

I recently have been researching a physicist of the name David Lawrence Hill that was a member of the Argonne Laboratory and the atomic pile experiment. Up until his passing in 2008, he was an opponent of the global warming theories that were emanating from other “scientists”. Hill was the real deal as he was the originator of the “collective theory of atomic fission” and later managed Los Alamos, taught at Princeton and Vanderbilt and was a guest lecturer and guest professor with Niels Bohr.

[Popman]

Well do I take the word of Al Gore, world renowned blowhard or the word of the leading world renowned MIT professor

Gee, that’s a tough one to figure out....

[BfloGuy]

This nation has never had as many college graduates — or as many intellectual sheep.

Ain't that the truth.

[Gene Eric]

>> The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Indeed, divisive tactics.

[eyedigress]

Watch Phil Valentine’s “An Inconsistent Truth”. It had a limited run and I watched it in a Nashville theater. He did a really good job of debunking everything AGW is all about. Al Gore and the rest of the left are full of it.

[Joan Kerrey]

I was a skeptic until one day I left my car running at my beachhouse and after about an hour the water level at the beach was 50 feet higher. The car and house were underwater and I barely made it to safety. The ocean had risen obviously due to the increased CO2 coming from my car. I swear this is a true story. I haven’t been back to Japan since. /s

[Oceander]

Very good presentation, and a very good basis for how conservatives - and other realists - should approach the acolytes of Global Warming: the climate is changing, and is probably currently increasing in temperature, but that is both trivially true and meaningless. In other words, let’s grant that the mean global temperature is increasing; nonetheless, that increase (a) will not lead to the catastrophes predicted by the acolytes of global warming, (b) was not primarily caused by human activity, and (c) will not be reduced by reducing human activity (i.e., rolling back the industrial age).

My favorite takeaway is the ending remark: “In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.”

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

EDITORIAL: Global warming’s desperate caper

Markey wants Heartland climate documents

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[JPG]

Algore has got to be pounding the Excedrin.

[Still Thinking]

MIT prof: “there won’t be much warming due to CO2”

Is it too soon to execute him? < /Albore >

[Still Thinking]

Well do I take the word of Al Gore, world renowned blowhard or the word of the leading world renowned MIT professor

Think.....think.....yup, that's a poser! (I meant the question, but I guess it fits AlBore too, and if the foo shits....)

[Still Thinking]

Algore has got to be pounding the Excedrin.

Or his shakras...

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Brilliant and timely. Thank you very much.

On a personal note, I know dozens of liberal who believe the AGW lie. I anxiously await the day that all credible scientists admit that man’s impact on climate is negligible.

I will never let these idiots ever forget it. Every time they express ANY opinion on scientific issues, I am going to body slam them with the reminder of how they were willfully duped by the AGW lie and remind them they have no credibility and should have no say.

The collapse of the AGW lie is going to be my “Get Out of Jail Free” card for the balance of my life.

[FreedomPoster]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but libs never admit they are wrong. Heck they still believe in Keynes despite all the evidence of the 20th Century.

[Dr. Killpatient]

Lindzen is an inconvenient truth.