See also: Václav Klaus's speech at today's Washington Times Climate Policy ConferenceIf you have a spare hour (6 times 10 minutes):
Link to this Playlist at YouTube.com...
In the first part, Lindzen starts to talk about the propagandistic character of the climate change meme, contacts between climate institutes and politicians, and the explicitly stated desires of climatologists to abuse the topic.
In the second part, he gets to the methods to shape (and replace) the public that is indifferent to the global warming picture. Lindzen picks (the BBC and) MIT president Susan Hockfield with her "accelerating global warming" as an example of the brainwashed laymen who are presented as the intellectual elites whose sensibilities the GOP politicians are not allowed to "insult".
Well, I feel so much happier to be outside the regime de facto controlled by these obnoxous dumb pompous v@ginas.
OK, at any rate, Richard discusses why the temperature changes - and sea ice changes - are small and mostly statistically insignificant. He continues with that in the third part. While these numbers are boring, anecdotal observations on icebergs are emotionally captivating, he says.
Returning to Hockfield, she answered Dick by the usual arrogant "best consensus" statements about the IPCC, even though the IPCC said nothing about any "acceleration". Richard's main point is that appeals to (would-be) authorities have replaced scientific arguments among all these people.
Similar details are revealed about the attack on the scientific integrity and intimidation by people like Holdren, Obama, Gore, and others. A highly contrived quote by Richard's colleague, Carl Wunsch, reveals that Wunsch is truly frustrated that the sea level changes can't be measured accurately to support global warming (and Obama). :-)
The fourth part begins with comments that tipping points are completely invented, analyses of exaggerated CO2 claims. The key general mechanism is that different parts of the AGW octopus are assuring each other that "some authority" will always support you even though you don't quite reveal what your desired statement is. These "authorities" cite each other - very inaccurately - but they're amplifying each other. None of them is actually able to think about the content.
In the middle of the fourth part, Richard offers a very cute joke explaining the logical fallacies that the AGW proponents use. They essentially revert the causal relationships between events ("A" shot "B") which is ludicrous especially if the chain of factors influencing each other is as long as the AGW chain.
Richard clarifies what the IPCC consensus is - 50% of the warming is probably due to man, a very modest statement - and how it was arrived at (bad models of natural variability, their disagreement, AGW fix added, a small committee, press release). The real cause of the warming could be one of those things that were known to be described badly by the models, but even if all the known things were described correctly, the cause could still be something unknown.
This IPCC attribution argument is logically fallacious - in a very similar way as the Intelligent Design "arguments", Richard says. Finally, Lindzen gets to the question of climate sensitivity.
In the fifth part, he criticizes the non-improving accuracy of the generally believed climate sensitivity - despite the billions of dollars spent for the research. And around 2:40, he discusses his paper with Choi involving the outgoing radiation, via ERBE/CERES. He says the controversial things that the zero-feedback response in the tropics is zero. If I were convinced about this assumption, the rest of their paper looks robust to me (but it would still be relevant for the tropics only).
The main talk ends around 6:57 and questions begin. The first question wants Richard to compare his work with the papers by Spencer. Richard mentions that Spencer's papers look at the microscopic origin of the feedbacks but they have similar results - so the present disagreement on whether or not the models predict a negative response are not really analyzed.
Another question is whether the plans to access the Arctic are a waste of money. Richard says that it depends on the quality of the icebreakers. ;-) It has been possible to get through the Arctic for some time. Sometimes you can get through, sometimes it's risky. But drilling through ice is doable, too.
The third question is in which direction the scientists are changing their opinions. Lindzen says that the guy who asked doesn't understand the situation: the field is corrupt. Almost nobody among the genuine scientists really believes it - and old scientists like Kerry Emanuel are opportunists - but the young scientists know that they're in trouble if they show this fact. And then there is a lot of people who are employed as scientists but they're not interested in the real science.
The final question suggests that the (proper) climate science is in a similar relationship with respect to the establishment as Galileo, and asks what to do. Richard says that people who are interested in the policy should learn science. And he explains why he is a denier and not a skeptic - because "skeptic" suggests that there is an a priori good case in favor of the theory which isn't there in the case of AGW.
Via Anthony Watts
By the way, a U.K. court has declared the belief in the man-made global warming to be a religion (Telegraph) and to enjoy the same rights.
Well, let them enjoy the same rights as other religious bigots - but it would be good and logical if the following verdict banned the global warming religious indoctrination in the public school, as all other kinds of religion.