Personal pages: MIT, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute. Articles and essays in WattsUpWithThat. Examples:

How to Discuss CAGW (Lecture in Norway, 2015)

Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm

Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can’t Afford to Lose by Stephen H. Schneider (1997), Reviewed by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT (1998). Few quotes:

“One would think it would be possible to present a coherent argument and discussion in a small book (154 pages plus 17 pages of introduction and preface), but Stephen Schneider fails.”

“As best I can tell, Schneider is trying to endorse both the study of the Earth as a system and the integrated assessment of potential damage from possible global warming. Schneider’s prejudice is revealed when he presents the Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren formula, I=PAT: Environmental Impact equals Population times Affluence per capita times Technology used. This is in the part of the introduction where Schneider introduces population, affluence and technology as “the enemy”. Here he also informs us that an altered climate is a “damaged climate.”

“Throughout this discussion, Schneider threads vague suggestions of the relevance of greenhouse warming – he seems to want the reader to accept the danger of global warming as a fact but to allow himself deniability. This pattern is found in his earlier works.”

“For a description of contrary views, Schneider refers the reader to an article in Harpers by Ross Gelbspan. The article, not otherwise described by Schneider, is a vitriolic screed in which opponents to global warming are described as “interchangeable hood ornaments on a high powered engine of disinformation” paid for by industry. Schneider does inform the reader that Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. This is a strange claim. The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to the Boston Globe for an article that never lists Gelbspan in any capacity. Gelbspan did not write the article in question.”

“A surprising amount of this book is devoted to excursions that in no discernible way deal with central theme of the book. … Many of Schneider’s claims, for example, about the successes of model predictions, are simply wrong and too numerous to list in a short review. Clearly, this is not a book for the serious reader. Rather, it seems to have been written to reassure the unsophisticated environmental enthusiast of the continuing possibility of doom.”

More pieces in general media:

Weekly Standard, 2014: “When you have an issue that is somewhat bogus, the opposition is always scattered and without resources,” he explains. “But the environmental movement is highly organized. There are hundreds of NGOs. To coordinate these hundreds, they quickly organized the Climate Action Network, the central body on climate. There would be, I think, actual meetings to tell them what the party line is for the year, and so on.” Skeptics, on the other hand, are more scattered across disciplines and continents. As such, they have a much harder time getting their message across. “

Newsmax, 2015

Breitbart, 2015

CBS Local, Boston, 2014

Examiner, 2016

Lindzen Quotes

Some YouTube videos:

Richard Lindzen on the State of Climate Science

MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen on the Politics of Global Warming

Prof Richard Lindzen on Global Warming, Lysenkoism & Eugenics

Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard Lindzen

Richard Lindzen, Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria

Why you should not worry

Richard Lindzen at International Conference on Climate Change

Interview with Professor Richard Lindzen

(posted on 08/19/2016, updated on 09/03/2016, updated on 12/20/2016)