47684 (Author at Cato Institute) https://www.cato.org/rss/people/47684 en Richard Lindzen discusses the corruption of climate science on The New Criterion https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/richard-lindzen-discusses-corruption-climate-science-new-criterion?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Sun, 01 May 2016 09:40:00 -0400 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/richard-lindzen-discusses-corruption-climate-science-new-criterion Richard Lindzen discusses the climate change debate on Prager University https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/richard-lindzen-discusses-climate-change-debate-prager-university?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:45:00 -0400 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/richard-lindzen-discusses-climate-change-debate-prager-university Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and Paul C. Knappenberger's blog post, "Is There No 'Hiatus' in Global Warming After All?", is cited on WABC's Red Eye Radio https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-j-michaels-richard-lindzen-paul-c-knappenbergers-blog-post?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:10:00 -0500 Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/patrick-j-michaels-richard-lindzen-paul-c-knappenbergers-blog-post Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen and Paul C. Knappenberger's blog post "Is There No "Hiatus" in Global Warming After All?" is cited on CBS KLAS 8 News Now at 11 PM https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-j-michaels-richard-lindzen-paul-c-knappenbergers-blog-post?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:40:00 -0400 Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-j-michaels-richard-lindzen-paul-c-knappenbergers-blog-post Is There No "Hiatus" in Global Warming After All? https://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Paul C. &quot;Chip&quot; Knappenberger <p>A new paper <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full">posted today on ScienceXpress</a> (from <em>Science </em>magazine), by Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s Climate Data Center, and several co-authors[1], that seeks to disprove the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. &#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the engine itself, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment <em>must</em> put a warming trend in the data.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, meaning the surface temperature <em>must</em> remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Additionally, there exist multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus”[3]. If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and mid-tropospheric temperatures is even larger that previously noted. &#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong invalidates virtually every forecast of sensible weather made by a climate model, as much of that weather (including rainfall) is determined in large part by the vertical structure of the atmosphere.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Instead, it would seem more logical to seriously question the Karl et al. result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in line with these other global records.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> And finally, even presuming all the adjustments applied by the authors ultimately prove to be accurate, the temperature trend reported during the “hiatus” period (1998-2014), remains significantly below (using Karl et al.’s measure of significance) the mean trend projected by the collection of climate models used in the most recent report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). &#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much. And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /><img src="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/karlgraph.jpg" alt="The distribution of trends of the projected global average surface temperature for the period 1998-2014 from 108 climate model runs used in the latest report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(blue bars). The models were run with historical climate forcings through 2005 and extended to 2014 with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario. The surface temperature trend over the same period, as reported by Karl et al. (2015, is included in red. It falls at the 2.4th percentile of the model distribution and indicates a value that is (statistically) significantly below the model mean projection." height="370" width="598" /><em>The distribution of trends of the projected global average surface temperature for the period 1998-2014 from 108 climate model runs used in the latest report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(blue bars). The models were run with historical climate forcings through 2005 and extended to 2014 with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario. The surface temperature trend over the same period, as reported by Karl et al. (2015, is included in red. It falls at the 2.4<sup>th</sup> percentile of the model distribution and indicates a value that is (statistically) significantly below the model mean projection.</em>&#13;</p> <p>&#13;<br /> &#13;</p> <hr /> div[1] Karl, T. R., et al., Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. <em>Scienceexpress</em>, embargoed until 1400 EDT June 4, 2015.&#13;<br /> &#13; <p>div[2] “It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998-2012…”&#13;<br /> &#13;</p> <p>div[3] Both the UAH and RSS satellite records are now in their 21<sup>st</sup> year without a significant trend, for example&#13;<br /> &#13;</p> <p>&#13;</p> Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:36:29 -0400 Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger https://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all Richard Lindzen discusses his WSJ article, "The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics", on FBN's Varney & Co. https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/richard-lindzen-discusses-wsj-article-political-assault-climate?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:20:00 -0500 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/richard-lindzen-discusses-wsj-article-political-assault-climate The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/political-assault-climate-skeptics?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Richard Lindzen <div class="lead text-default"> <p>Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.</p> </div> , <div class="text-default"> <p>Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.</p> <p>As to the science itself, it’s worth noting that all predictions of warming since the onset of the last warming episode of 1978-98—which is the only period that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attempts to attribute to carbon-dioxide emissions—have greatly exceeded what has been observed. These observations support a much reduced and essentially harmless climate response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.</p> <p></p> </div> , <aside class="aside--right aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2"> <div class="pullquote pullquote--default"> <div class="pullquote__content h2"> <p>Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.</p> </div> </div> </aside> , <div class="text-default"> <p>In addition, there is experimental support for the increased importance of variations in solar radiation on climate and a renewed awareness of the importance of natural unforced climate variability that is largely absent in current climate models. There also is observational evidence from several independent studies that the so-called “water vapor feedback,” essential to amplifying the relatively weak impact of carbon dioxide alone on Earth temperatures, is canceled by cloud processes.</p> <p>There are also claims that extreme weather—hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, you name it—may be due to global warming. The data show no increase in the number or intensity of such events. The IPCC itself <a href="http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/" target="_blank">acknowledges</a> the lack of any evident relation between extreme weather and climate, though allowing that with sufficient effort some relation might be uncovered.</p> <p>World leaders proclaim that climate change is our greatest problem, demonizing carbon dioxide. Yet atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.</p> <p>Currently elevated levels of carbon dioxide have contributed to increases in agricultural productivity. Indeed, climatologists before the recent global warming hysteria referred to warm periods as “climate optima.” Yet world leaders are embarking on costly policies that have no capacity to replace fossil fuels but enrich crony capitalists at public expense, increasing costs for all, and restricting access to energy to the world’s poorest populations that still lack access to electricity’s immense benefits.</p> <p>Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy. So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.</p> <p>The latest example began with an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html" target="_blank">article</a> published in the <a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/NYT"><em>New York Times</em></a> on Feb. 22 about Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Mr. Soon has, for over 25 years, argued for a primary role of solar variability on climate. But as Greenpeace <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/" target="_blank">noted in 2011</a>, Mr. Soon was, in small measure, supported by fossil-fuel companies over a period of 10 years.</p> <p>The Times reintroduced this old material as news, arguing that Mr. Soon had failed to list this support in a recent paper in Science Bulletin of which he was one of four authors. Two days later Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, used the Times article as the basis for a hunting expedition into anything said, written and communicated by seven individuals— David Legates, John Christy, Judith Curry, Robert Balling, Roger Pielke Jr. , Steven Hayward and me—about testimony we gave to Congress or other governmental bodies. We were selected solely on the basis of our objections to alarmist claims about the climate.</p> <p>In <a href="http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research" target="_blank">letters</a> he sent to the presidents of the universities employing us (although I have been retired from MIT since 2013), Mr. Grijalva wanted all details of all of our outside funding, and communications about this funding, including “consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and any other monies.” Mr. Grijalva acknowledged the absence of any evidence but purportedly wanted to know if accusations made against Mr. Soon about alleged conflicts of interest or failure to disclose his funding sources in science journals might not also apply to us.</p> <p>Perhaps the most bizarre letter concerned the University of Colorado’s Mr. Pielke. His specialty is science policy, not science per se, and he supports reductions in carbon emissions but finds no basis for associating extreme weather with climate. Mr. Grijalva’s complaint is that Mr. Pielke, in agreeing with the IPCC on extreme weather and climate, contradicts the assertions of John Holdren, President Obama ’s science czar.</p> <p>Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress. After the Times article, Sens. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and <a href="http://topics.wsj.com/person/B/Barbara-Boxer/5534">Barbara Boxer</a> (D., Calif.) also sent letters to numerous energy companies, industrial organizations and, strangely, many right-of-center think tanks (including the Cato Institute, with which I have an association) to unearth their alleged influence peddling.</p> <p>The American Meteorological Society responded with appropriate indignation at the singling out of scientists for their scientific positions, as did many individual scientists. On Monday, apparently reacting to criticism, Mr. Grijalva <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/grijalva-climate-letters-went-too-far-in-seeking-correspondence-20150302?ref=t.co&amp;mrefid=walkingheader" target="_blank">conceded</a> to the National Journal that his requests for communications between the seven of us and our outside funders was “overreach.”</p> <p>Where all this will lead is still hard to tell. At least Mr. Grijalva’s letters should help clarify for many the essentially political nature of the alarms over the climate, and the damage it is doing to science, the environment and the well-being of the world’s poorest.</p> </div> Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:13:00 -0500 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/political-assault-climate-skeptics Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/cato-institute-center-study-science?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Patrick J. Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, Edward J. Calabrese, Paul C. &quot;Chip&quot; Knappenberger <p>Founded in 2012, the Center for the Study of Science was created to provide market-based ideas that could transition policy regarding energy consumption, environmental standards and other science-related issues away from government planners.</p> <p>Today, the Center is adding scholars to a team that will continue to use sound science to answer questions related environmental regulation through an objective framework. </p> Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:59:00 -0400 Patrick J. Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, Edward J. Calabrese, Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/cato-institute-center-study-science Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm https://www.cato.org/blog/reflections-rapid-response-unjustified-climate-alarm?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Richard Lindzen <p><span>The Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science today kicks off its rapid response center that </span><span>will identify and correct inappropriate and generally bizarre claims on behalf of climate alarm. I </span><span>wish them luck in this worthy enterprise, but more will surely be needed to deal with this issue.</span>&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> To be sure, there is an important role for such a center. It is not to convince the ‘believers.’ Nor do I think that there is any longer a significant body of sincere and intelligent individuals who are simply trying to assess the evidence. As far as I can tell, the issue has largely polarized that relatively small portion of the population that has chosen to care about the issue. The remainder quite reasonably have chosen to remain outside the polarization. Thus the purpose of a rapid response Center will be to reassure those who realize that this is a fishy issue, that there remain scientists who are still concerned with the integrity of science. There is also a crucial role in informing those who wish to avoid the conflict as to what is at stake. While these are important functions, there are other issues that I feel a think tank ought to consider. Moreover, there is a danger that rapid response to trivial claims lends unwarranted seriousness to these claims. &#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Climate alarm belongs to a class of issues characterized by a claim for which there is no evidence, that nonetheless appeals strongly to one or more interests or prejudices. Once the issue is adopted, evidence becomes irrelevant. Instead, the believer sees what he believes. Anything can serve as a supporting omen. Three very different previous examples come to mind (though there are many more examples that could be cited): Malthus’ theory of overpopulation, social Darwinism and the Dreyfus Affair. Although each of these issues engendered opposition, only the Dreyfus Affair led to widespread societal polarization. More commonly, only the ‘believers’ are sufficiently driven to form a movement. We will briefly review these examples (though each has been subject to book length analyses), but the issue of climate alarm is somewhat special in that it appeals to a sizeable number of interests, and has strong claims on the scientific community. It also has the potential to cause exceptional harm to an unprecedented number of people. This has led to persistent opposition amidst widespread lack of interest. However, all these issues are characterized by profound immorality pretending to virtue. &#13;<br /> &#13;</p> <p>Malthus’ peculiar theory wherein the claimed linear growth of food loses out to the exponential growth of population has maintained continuous popularity in the faculty lounge for about two centuries. It is, therefore, worth noting that Malthus had no evidence that food supply would increase only linearly. Nor did he have evidence for exponential population growth. Malthus initially went so far as to estimate an e-folding time for population of 25 years, based on the population of North America, and ignoring the role of immigration. Although Malthus, himself, eventually acknowledged these problems, the enthusiasm for his anti-human conclusions remains strong. Neither the green revolution nor the diminution of famine amidst increasing population dissuades them. The fact that Chad is poor and the Netherlands is rich never strikes the believer as odd. Apparently, the growth of cities, the movement of workers from the farm to the city, and, for much of the developed world, immigration, all served to convince people of means that there were too many other people around, and Malthusian theory formed a framework for something they were (and are) eager to believe.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Social Darwinism and its corollary, eugenics, represents another case of a theory without support that was widely accepted with, at times, horrid consequences. Darwin’s “The Origin of the Species” had immense influence. It presented a theory whereby natural selection and what were essentially mutations could account for biological evolution. While it offered valuable insights into the development of finch beaks, it was hardly meant to describe societal evolution. Nevertheless, the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ applied to society had obvious appeal to those who perceived themselves to be the fittest and who naturally regarded the application as scientifically justified. It was a small step to eugenics which was the counterpart of modern day environmentalism during the first third of the twentieth century, and was supported by all the ‘best’ people (including George Bernard Shaw, Margaret Sanger, Alexander Graham Bell, and Theodore Roosevelt) despite the fact that there actually was a mathematical theorem (the Hardy-Weinberg Theorem) that showed that the impact of eugenics on the gene pool would be negligible. Needless to add, mathematics is of no importance to the ‘best’ people. Malthusian population fears continue to the present, but eugenics was rendered unfashionable by the obvious implications presented by the Nazis.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> While science is a common vehicle for such misuse, the Dreyfus Affair shows that other vehicles exist. In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of passing secret French military information to the Germans. There was, in fact, no evidence to support this accusation. Nevertheless, there was again a strong desire on the part of many people in France to believe the accusation. To be sure, there was the endemic anti-Semitism in France. However, there was also the humiliation of France’s loss in the Franco-Prussian War, and the desire to blame such loss not on the army, but on the perfidy of a group that some considered to be ‘outside’. (The Nazis’ ‘stab in the back’ theory for the German loss in WW1 represents a similar instinct). Dreyfus was tried (several times) and sentenced to Devil’s Island. Prominent Frenchmen (Emile Zola in particular) , incensed by the obvious injustice campaigned for Dreyfus, and the issue literally split France in half (partly because the conflict between Catholics and Secularists also entered the Affair). Dreyfus was eventually exonerated after the identification of the actual spy became undeniable.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong interests in believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are the leftist economists for whom global warming represents a market failure, there are the UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance, there are third world dictators who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid (ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries), there are the environmental activists who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their numerous NGOs, there are the crony capitalists who see the opportunity to cash in on the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy, there are the government regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true, there are newly minted billionaires who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions, etc., etc. Strange as it may seem, even the fossil fuel industry is generally willing to go along. After all, they realize better than most, that there is no current replacement for fossil fuels. The closest possibilities, nuclear and hydro, are despised by the environmentalists. As long as fossil fuel companies have a level playing field, and can pass expenses to the consumers, they are satisfied. Given the nature of corporate overhead, the latter can even form a profit center. The situation within science itself is equally grim. Huge sums of government and private funding have become available to what was initially a small backwater field. Science becomes easy when emphasis is on malleable models supported by hugely uncertain data that can be readily found ‘consistent’ with the models supplemented by fervidly imagined catastrophic ‘implications.’ Indeed, uncertainty is often exaggerated for just this purpose. Opposition within the scientific community is immediately met with ad hominem attacks, loss of funding, and difficulty in publishing.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Of course, science is not the only victim of this situation. Affordable energy has been the primary vehicle for the greatest advance in human welfare in human history. This issue promises to deny this to the over 1 billion humans who still lack electricity. For billions more energy will be much less affordable leading to increased poverty. Poverty, itself, is a major factor in reduced life expectancy. It requires a peculiarly ugly obtuseness to ignore the fundamental immorality of this issue.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Although all these issues have strong political consequences, it is by no means clear that their origin is, itself, political. I would suggest that a more likely situation is that politics is always opportunistically seeking some cause that fits its needs. However, once an illusional issue becomes a passionate belief, it becomes impervious to argument. Given how dangerous some illusional positions are, it is an important problem to know how to avoid them. This is a problem that is truly worthy of Cato’s attention. Rapid response can only do so much; belief seems to inevitably trump objective reality when one is free to choose ones narrative.</p> Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:48:39 -0400 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/blog/reflections-rapid-response-unjustified-climate-alarm Richard S. Linzen on whether science is progressing https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/richard-s-linzen-whether-science-progressing?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:43:00 -0500 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/richard-s-linzen-whether-science-progressing Is Science Progressing? https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/science-progressing?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Richard Lindzen <p>Featuring Richard S. Lindzen, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute; Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; moderated by Patrick Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute.</p> <p>For many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60's have powerful elements that serve to inhibit major developments. Dr. Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist, and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.</p> <p>Quantification of the effects of the support structure is complicated. There are a multiplicity of factors involved, including the existence of branches of science that are closely associated with political and social agendas. Changes in the character of major research centers, including the federalization of major research universities, also plays a major role, independent of the particular area of science. Serious studies of marginal factors such as diminishing returns as funding increases are sorely lacking.</p> <p>Video produced by Blair Gwaltney.</p> Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:27:00 -0500 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/science-progressing Is Science Progressing? https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/science-progressing?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels <p>For many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60's have powerful elements that serve to inhibit major developments. Dr. Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist, and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.</p> <p>Quantification of the effects of the support structure is complicated. There are a multiplicity of factors involved, including the existence of branches of science that are closely associated with political and social agendas. Changes in the character of major research centers, including the federalization of major research universities, also plays a major role, independent of the particular area of science. Serious studies of marginal factors such as diminishing returns as funding increases are sorely lacking.</p> Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:00:00 -0500 Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/science-progressing Does History Predict the Future of Climate Science? https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/does-history-predict-future-climate-science?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Richard Lindzen, Kelly William Cobb <p>In many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60s have powerful unintended consequences that serve to inhibit major developments. Richard Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.</p> <p>Specifically, Lindzen will explore how the symbiotic relationship between support for climate science and support for climate policy has been powered by the political process. Has this happened before at the technical-policy interface for other issues in other nations? Are we witnessing the rise of yet another instance of "public policy [becoming] a captive of a scientific-technological elite," as predicted by President Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address?</p> Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:00:00 -0500 Richard Lindzen, Kelly William Cobb https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/does-history-predict-future-climate-science Understanding The IPCC Climate Assessment https://www.cato.org/blog/understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Richard Lindzen <p>Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. That is to say the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document, and as George Orwell noted, political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming; all models show greater tropical warming than has been observed since 1978; and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth. And yet, as the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> With low sensitivity, economic analyses suggest that warming under 2C would likely be beneficial to the earth. Heat ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean would mean that current IPCC models fail to describe heat exchange between surface waters and the deep ocean. Such exchanges are essential features of natural climate variability, and all IPCC claims of attribution of warming to mans activities depend on the assumption that the models accurately portray this natural variability.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> In attempting to convince the public to accept the need to for the environmental movement’s agenda, continual reference is made to consensus. This is dishonest not because of the absence of a consensus, but because the consensus concerning such things as the existence of irregular (and small compared to normal regional variability) net warming since about 1850, the existence of climate change (which has occurred over the earths entire existence), the fact that added greenhouse gases should have some impact (though small unless the climate system acts so as to greatly amplify this effect) over the past 60 years with little impact before then, and the fact that greenhouse gases have increased over the past 200 years or so, and that their greenhouse impact is already about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 are all perfectly consistent with there being no serious problem. Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> Carbon restriction policies, to have any effect on climate, would require that the most extreme projections of dangerous climate actually be correct, and would require massive reductions in the use of energy to be universally adopted. There is little question that such reductions would have negative impacts on income, development, the environment, and food availability and cost – especially for the poor. This would clearly be immoral.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> By contrast, the reasonable and moral policy would be to foster economic growth, poverty reduction and well being in order that societies be better able to deal with climate change regardless of its origin. Mitigation policies appear to have the opposite effect without significantly reducing the hypothetical risk of any changes in climate. While reducing vulnerability to climate change is a worthy goal, blind support for mitigation measures – regardless of the invalidity of the claims – constitutes what might be called bankrupt morality.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /> It is not sufficient for actions to artificially fulfill people’s need for transcendent aspirations in order for the actions to be considered moral. Needless to add, support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for science.&#13;<br /> &#13;<br /><em>Cross-posted from <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org">The Global Warming Policy Foundation</a></em></p> Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:16:00 -0400 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/blog/understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment Richard Lindzen on the misrepresentations of climate change https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/richard-lindzen-misrepresentations-climate-change?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:14:00 -0400 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-audio/richard-lindzen-misrepresentations-climate-change Climate Coup: Global Warming's Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/climate-coup-global-warmings-invasion-our-government-our-lives?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Wed, 04 May 2011 12:00:00 -0400 Patrick J. Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Bob Ryan https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/climate-coup-global-warmings-invasion-our-government-our-lives Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-1992/global-warming-origin-nature-alleged-scientific-consensus?utm_source=rss_author&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:00:00 -0400 Richard Lindzen https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-1992/global-warming-origin-nature-alleged-scientific-consensus