Summary of #19 - Richard Lindzen on climate science from the inside

00:00:00 - 00:45:00

Richard Lindzen, a Professor Emeritus at MIT, shares his insight on climate science and its flaws. He notes that a narrative was introduced into climate science despite questionable assumptions and idiocy, and climate scientists use methods to create a warming metric that does not match data. Additionally, Lindzen discusses the polar amplification theory's flaws and feels that the power to control carbon dioxide gives politicians too much control. He also talks about the ineffectiveness of climate policies proposed by Europe and the US, as China, India, and Africa continue to burn fossil fuels. Finally, Lindzen points out the effect of carbon dioxide on plants and that it is not a significant control on climate.

• 00:00:00 In this section, Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus at MIT, explains his background as a physicist in atmospheric sciences and the interesting puzzles and problems that come with studying the atmosphere. He delves into researching phenomena such as the tropical stratosphere's wind patterns, tides, and resonant frequencies. However, he notes that during the '80s, the conversation surrounding global warming took off, accompanied by much political hoopla and declarations from professional organizations. Lindzen found that suddenly you couldn't publish contradictory information and that even though he had a distinguished career and was a member of the National Academy, the American Meteorological Society treated him differently after he published two papers in their Bulletin.
• 00:05:00 In this section, Dr. Richard Lindzen discusses how a narrative was introduced into climate science. He explains that the narrative got accepted despite many questionable assumptions and idiocy. Lindzen also mentions that, over the years, the need to make climate change an immediate problem became necessary due to the belief that people were putting off dealing with it. He notes that the early 90s saw climate scientists publish reviews of temperature changes, but he began to worry about how changes in temperature were determined and defined. This led to the creation of "global anomaly," which was based on a 30-year average deviation of each station's temperature.
• 00:10:00 In this section, Lindzen discusses the methods used to create the warming metric in climate science. He highlights the disparity between what data actually shows versus what some scientists claim. Lindzen mentions the creation of the hockey stick graph which was used to discredit the evidence that the Medieval Warm Period ever existed and portray the change in temperature as unprecedented despite observations showing it was tiny. He also talks about the various biases present in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and how their reports are often modified to match the summary for policy makers, leading to a misrepresentation of the actual science.
• 00:15:00 In this section, Lindzen discusses how a seemingly innocent statement made by an attribution panel on climate change was taken out of context by the political system, environmental groups, and media, leading to policymakers enacting extreme measures to control CO2 emissions, even though it is not a pollutant. He explains that there was no basis for "polar amplification," which was the idea that a small change in the tropics would be amplified with latitude and result in disastrous consequences, as the tropics and extra-tropics are separate regimes. While the bulk of feedbacks in the greenhouse operate in the tropics, the extra-tropics are determined by cyclones and anti-cyclones that carry heat from the tropics to high latitude, exerting an impact on the tropics.
• 00:20:00 In this section, Lindzen discusses how the temperature of the Earth has changed over time and how it has puzzled scientists. He suggests that despite the Earth undergoing different temperatures over time, the tropics have barely changed. Lindzen believes that CO2 does not have the capability to make a significant difference in the Earth's climate since the Earth is well-designed. He also points out the flaws in the "polar amplification" theory and notes how the funding increase for climate research brought in many researchers who worked on various climate-related topics. Lindzen criticizes the nature of funding in universities that has changed over time and how it affects the way research is conducted.
• 00:25:00 In this section, Richard Lindzen discusses the issues of inequality and the impact of money on the climate science field. He points out the distortions that come with a field that has a high concentration of funding, and notes that many climate scientists have left the field because it is too dangerous to work on a problem where you have to get a specific answer. Lindzen believes that only a small percentage of climate scientists are working on understanding natural variability, while many are focused on studying impacts on animals like chipmunks. He also discusses the problems with peer review, stating that it is largely a device to maintain groupthink, and suggests that there is no easy solution for fixing it. Ultimately, Lindzen feels that the power to control carbon dioxide is too monumental and that it has given politicians too much power.
• 00:30:00 In this section, Lindzen discusses the ineffectiveness of climate policies proposed by Europe and the US in mitigating climate change as China, India, and Africa continue to burn fossil fuels. He highlights how unsustainable policies will only lead to damages, and therefore, until one sees the aftermath of these policies, it will be challenging to gauge their effectiveness. Lindzen pinpoints the root of the problem to the grassroots that are pushing for climate change policies with little scientific background. Additionally, Lindzen mentions how the Chinese are exploiting climate change to destroy western countries without even firing a shot and change the world order. Finally, he talks about weather forecasting and how solving it is perhaps the only good problem that remains unsolved.
• 00:35:00 In this section, Richard Lindzen discusses how the temperature of the Earth can change without any external influence and how this concept is often overlooked in climate science. He argues that minor temperature changes, such as a degree variation, are not significant and we should not base our actions solely on them. Lindzen also talks about his involvement in studying the ozone hole and how it did not start with the Antarctic ozone hole, but rather with the supersonic transport. He explains that while there was some concern about the effects of the SST's exhaust on the ozone, it was realized that oxides of nitrogen were naturally present in much greater amounts.
• 00:40:00 In this section, Richard Lindzen talks about the discovery of the ozone hole and how it led to the Montreal Convention, which banned the use of freons. Lindzen mentions how the success of the convention led some negotiators to believe that international agreements on carbon dioxide emissions could be instituted. However, Lindzen states that the ozone hole only affected a narrow region of the South Pole and was never a significant threat to anyone. Lindzen comments on the lack of a red team versus blue team approach to climate science and how this has been unsuccessful in the past. He concludes by saying that, based on his experience and knowledge, warmer temperatures are better, and the Earth has numerous climate regimes that need to be understood.
• 00:45:00 In this section, Richard Lindzen discusses the variability of climates and the effect of carbon dioxide on plants. He argues that CO2 is not a significant pollutant or control on climate, but rather a free fertilizer that helps plants grow. Even at levels of 1,000 parts per million, which he doesn't think we'll reach, CO2 wouldn't be problematic. Lindzen also comments on the difficulty of understanding climate science, citing the distortion of information and the politicization of the topic as major barriers to understanding.