Richard Lindzen discusses Is Global Warming a Cause For Alarm?
Our planet has become warmer in recent decades, and there is a growing chorus claiming that, unless we curb production of greenhouse gases, the consequences will be disastrous. However, some still remain unconvinced that economy-wide carbon caps and similar regulatory measures will help the situation, the President among them.
Does the cost of regulation outweigh the damage of inaction? Should the United States government take dramatic public policy steps and become a party to international treaties, or continue to wait and see? Should we brace for stronger hurricanes, invasions of tropical diseases, and significant increases in sea levels, or is the danger overstated?
Professor Richard Lindzen steps into the fray to offer his view that irrational alarm may be clouding our judgment- Ford Hall Forum
Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. He has published over 200 books and scientific papers. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 (physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001).
Freudian slip? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Criticizing and criticising both mean the same thing and both are the correct spelling depending on what country you call home.
Linzen does not deny that some AGW should exist, it is the doomsday hype that AGW'ers spew that Linzen is criticising and quite well I might add.
As for the responses, ad hominem, ad hominem and more ad hominem. Over half of the supposed "in-depth look" criticizms from the logical science link are ad hominem attacks. The bulk of the criticisms of Lindzen are just that. He lists well over a dozen specific points that are persuasive. Refute his claims!
I'm curious if you realize the Freudian slip. Is it the anthropogenic global warming that he's criticizing and you agree with criticising?
This talk is a pompous address aimed the the mass of people who can't tell hard science from pseudo-science.
Lindzen is a fine contrarian but in this issue he is simply wrong when he says it is not a crisis or that there is no scientific consensus.
There is an in-depth look (sourced) at his claims on the logical science site: