Lindzen at the House of Commons

Repost from Bishop Hill (click to visit)

Professor Richard Lindzen spoke last week at the House of Commons at a seminar organised by Repeal the Act. It got some unexpected press. I’ve been wanting to hear it since James Delingpole covered it as Lindzen totally pwns the alarmists. Videos now available as well as the slides (below).

“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.”

The slides are here, and here are the videos (which don’t show much of the slides):

Part 1:

Part 2:

Judith Curry has a discussion of the presentation here. Her comments seem fair. My own will have to wait as I have an early flight in the morning.

Update – see below in comments for versions of the videos without the music (which has caused copyright issues in some countries)

This entry was posted in Opinion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Lindzen at the House of Commons

  1. For me the highlight of Lindzen’s wit and wisdom was his comment on the fact that NASA/GISS “Adjustments” to their station data increased warming by 0.14 Kelvin/century

    “We may not be able to predict the future, but in climate ‘science,’ we also
    can’t predict the past.”

  2. His introduction is a killer. I see Brenchley smiling and looking very pleased just over Lindzens left shoulder. Lindzen is obviously his hero. I showed the first and last pages, and the two un-annotated (is that a word, or have I just made one up?) and anonymous temperature graphs to a friend who prefers consensus and authority to investigation, and he said “Is that what all the fuss has been about?” A conversion on the road to Damascus, no less.

  3. Climate change is the norm. If you want something to worry about, it would be if the climate were static. It would be like a person being dead. – Richard Lindzen.

  4. Verity Jones says:

    i’ve watched/listened to it right through twice now. His calm tone and lack of hyperbole is so much more persuasive than some of the “more dynamic” speakers (such as Monckton).

    HIghtlights? The intro and clear statement of “what skeptics agree”; the Giss changes; the identical periods graphs (slide 16). I also learned a lot I didn’t know – more detail about the hotspot for example. The way he talked about the daily, seasonal and worldwide variations was very clever. It is a point I have heard made many times before but seldom as well as he made it.

    @MostlyHarmless, great – more people need to be exposed to this.

  5. pgosselin says:

    The first video is being blocked here in Germany because the music is protected by copyright.

    • Verity Jones says:

      Oh that’s not good – I’m sure they can make a version without the music.

    • For those to whom the tune is familiar, but don’t know the name or background, it’s “Colonel Bogey”, a military march written in 1914 by a British army bandmaster, and popular in the UK ever since. It was the theme of the 1957 British film “The Bridge on the River Kwai” set in a Japanese prisoner of war camp for British troops in Burma during WW2. It’s been adopted since as a symbol of defiance, “cocking a snook” against oppression and overbearing authority., hence its use here, I’m sure.

      To quote Wikipedia: “Many humorous or satirical verses have been sung to this tune; some of them vulgar”.I’d amend that (perhaps I will!) to “… most of them vulgar, VERY vulgar”.

      • I don’t think it was that vulgar (ok, maybe I see the old songs as relatively innocuous) ..
        To the tune of the Colonel Bogie March :
        “Hitler only had one ball, Goering had two but they were small,
        Himmler was somewhat similar, but poor old Gobbels had no balls at all.”
        I marched many happy miles singing that!

        [Reply – Oh dear! You realise now every time I hear the tune…

        I can’t say I’ve heard any of the ‘vulgar’ lyrics, at least none that have stuck in my memory. Besides we’ve almost certainly become more tolerant (desensitised) of ‘rude words’. Verity]

  6. I can report that both parts of the video will now be uploaded – without the tune – so that Germany can watch a powerful presentation of the facts about global warming.

    Repeal the Act! Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act

  7. Here is part one of the Lindzen seminar without the music

  8. Part two without music.

Comments are closed.