By James Delingpole
Professor
Richard Lindzen is one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest.
What he doesn't know about the science behind climate change probably isn't
worth knowing. But even if you weren't aware of all this, even if you'd come to
the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or
expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his
elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
Dick Lindzen does not need to raise his voice. He does not use hyperbole. In a tone somewhere between weariness and withering disdain, he lets the facts speak for themselves. And the facts, as he understands them, are devastating.
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.
But
don't take my word for it. Simon Carr of the Independent (not a publication
hitherto noted for its rampant AGW scepticism) was sufficiently impressed to
write a blog on the subject headlined Is
catastrophic global warming, like Millennium Bug, a mistake?
I think we know
the answer to that one, eh
No comments:
Post a Comment