... with Mr. Grégoire Canlorbe,
in Paris, in May 2018.
in Paris, in May 2018.
Grégoire Canlorbe is Vice President
of the Parti National-Libéral, conservative,
nationalist, and free-marketist), and a supporter
of the Association des Climato-Réalistes,
the only climate-skeptic organization in France.
for which he conducted the interview.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen
is an American atmospheric physicist
known for his work in the
dynamics of the atmosphere,
atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.
From 1983 until his retirement in 2013,
he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor
of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7,
“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,”
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
Third Assessment Report on climate change.
He has criticized the scientific consensus
and “climate alarmism.”
The complete interview transcript is at the URL below:
http://gregoirecanlorbe.com/a-conversation-with-prof-richard-lindzen
My summary of selected
questions and quotes,
formatted for easy reading,
is below:
The complete interview transcript is at the URL below:
http://gregoirecanlorbe.com/a-conversation-with-prof-richard-lindzen
My summary of selected
questions and quotes,
formatted for easy reading,
is below:
Grégoire Canlorbe:
"You have sparked vehement reactions,
in highlighting how futile the popular claims
on increasing droughts, floods, hurricanes,
tornadoes, sea level rise, and other extremes.
Even modest warming, you say,
should not be considered
a genuine threat to human health
and agriculture.
Could you remind us of the data
invalidating climate doomsday s
cenarios?"
Richard Lindzen:
"... The time history of such matters
as droughts, floods, hurricanes,
tornadoes and temperature extremes
is well recorded by official bodies
like NOAA, and display no
systematic increase.
Indeed, some, like hurricanes,
appear to be decreasing.
... and even the IPCC has acknowledged
the absence of significant associations
with warming."
" The mostly non-scientist
proponents of climate hysteria
realize that distant forecasts
of remote problems
by inadequate models
are unlikely to motivate people
to shut down
modern industrial society.
They, therefore, attempt to claim
that we are seeing the problems right now.
Of course, the warming that has
occurred over the past 200 years
or so, has been too small
to have been a major factor.
However,
objective reality matters little
when it comes to propaganda
– where repetition
can effectively counter reality."
"... carefully analyzed tide gauge data
shows sea-level increasing
about 20 cm per century
for at least 2 centuries
– with no sign of acceleration
to the present.
The claim that this increase
is accelerating is very peculiar.
Tide gauges don’t actually measure
sea-level.
Rather, they measure the difference
between land level and sea level.
At many stations, the former
is much more important.
In order to estimate sea level,
one has to restrict oneself
to tectonically stable sites."
"Since 1979 we have been
able to measure
sea level itself with satellites.
However, the accuracy
of such measurements
depends critically on such factors
as the precise shape of the earth.
While the satellites show slightly greater
rates of sea level rise,
the inaccuracy of the measurement
renders the difference uncertain.
What the proponents of alarm have done
is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979,
but assume that the satellite data
is correct after that date,
and that the difference in rates
constitutes ‘acceleration.’
They then assume acceleration
will continue leading to
large sea level rises
by the end of this century.
It is hard to imagine
that such illogical arguments
would be tolerated in other fields."
Grégoire Canlorbe:
It is commonly admitted
that temperature increases
follow the rise
in atmospheric CO2 levels
—and not the other way around.
In this regard,
fossil fuels emissions
are easily believed to be
the most plausible origin
of contemporary
increasing CO2 levels.
Do you question this dogma?
Richard Lindzen:
"... Increases in CO2
have produced
about a 1% perturbation
in the earth’s energy budget.
This impact was
so much smaller
before around 1960,
that almost no one
(including the IPCC)
claims the impact
was significant
before that date.
Even a 1% change is no greater
than what is normally produced
by relatively small changes
in cloud cover or ocean circulations
which are always carrying heat
to and from the surface."
"Observationally,
one would have to see
changes since 1960
that could not otherwise
be expected.
According to the IPCC,
models find that there is
nothing competitive
with man-made climate change,
but observations contradict this.
The warming from 1919-1939
was almost identical
to the warming from 1978-1998.
Moreover, there was
an almost total slowdown
of warming since 1998.
Both imply that there is something
at least as strong as man-made warming
going on."
Grégoire Canlorbe:
Thank you for your time.
Is there anything you would like to add?
Richard Lindzen:
There are many things I would like to add,
but your readers can easily find them in my publications. (link below)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
Note:
This blog previously had
an interview
with Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/03/patrick-moore-phd-on-climate-change.html
Note:
This blog previously had
an interview
with Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/03/patrick-moore-phd-on-climate-change.html