When it comes to the health impacts of global warming, Americans are woefully uninformed.
In fact, according to a survey conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, only about one in four can even name a health problem associated with global warming that their fellow Americans might be suffering from.
Only 14% of Americans...
- Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964).
- S.M., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961).
- A.B. (mcl), Physics, Harvard University (1960).
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as well as the Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. 
Professor Lindzen's academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.”
Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.
Stance on Climate Change
Richard Lindzen's scientific stance on climate change and anthropogenic global warming is that the earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling.
According to Dr. Lindzen, the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are problematic and limited because they are based on computer models which Lindzen says are “generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.” 
Furthermore, he feels that the issue of global warming is completely political, and that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda. 
Fall 2013The consequences of the Iron Triangle include ascendancy of politically correct mediocrities or incompetents such as T.D. Lysenko, which is inevitable given public inability to judge science. Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status. Advocates grossly exaggerate results in order to promote their cause. An obsessive focus on unimportant or irrelevant aspects of the issue develops. A profound dumbing down of the discussion (including the abdication of logic) interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” 
“To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science.” 
“…there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.” 
September 18, 2014
Richard Lindzen writes a blog post for the Cato Institute titled, “Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm,” detailing Cato's Center for the Study of Science's “rapid response center,” which aims to “identify and correct inappropriate and generally bizarre claims on behalf of climate alarm.”  Lindzen writes that “climate alarm belongs to a class of issues characterized by a claim for which there is no evidence, that nonetheless appeals strongly to one of more interests of prejudices. Once the issue is adopted, evidence becomes irrelevant. Instead, the believer sees what he believes.”  Lindzen notes, “there is an important role for such a center … to reassure those who realize that this [climate alarm] is a fishy issue, that there remain scientists who are still concerned with the integrity of science … This is a problem that is truly worth of Cato's attention.” 
Lindzen publishes an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons entitled, “Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precendents.” 
January 27, 2012
Other signatories include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, Jan Breslow, William Happer, William Kininmonth, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.
Skeptical Science summarized how the list of signatories “only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades.” Also, almost half have received funding from oil companies and big industry. 
March 8 - 10, 2009
Sponsors of the 2009 conference have collectively received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations.
March 8, 2007
Appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
The Great Global Warming Swindle also starred fellow skeptics Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Nir Shaviv, Nigel Lawson, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Philip Stott, Paul Reiter, Patrick Moore, Patrick Michaels, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Fred Singer, Paul Driessen, and others.
December 13, 2007
Lindzen was a signatory to a 2007 open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon that declared “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.” 
The letter further explains how carbon dioxide is a “non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis” and why the IPCC's reports are “inadequate as justification” for implementing climate change policy.
Lindzen was also a signatory to the 2005 Leipzig Declaration which describes the Kyoto Protocol as “dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.” 
The Declaration further states that “there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide.”
The Declaration, available in two versions, was penned by prominent climate-change denier Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). SEPP has received at least $20,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Lindzen made the claim that the climate would be significantly colder in 20 years.
When James Annan, a British climate researcher, approached Lindzen about solidifying a bet on the claim, Lindzen would only agree if Annan would accept a 50-to-1 payout (Annan did not agree to those terms).
November 16, 2004
The letter concludes that that past past warming in the arctic cannot be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations:
“Arctic climate has and will continue to exhibit intricate patterns not reliably reproduced by global climate simulations, thus underscoring their scientific incompleteness and need for advances in Arctic climate science, in measurements, theory and models.”
May 2, 2001
Testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the subject of climate change.
Lindzen concluded that “If we view Kyoto as an insurance policy, it is a policy where the
premium appears to exceed the potential damages, and where the coverage extends to only a small fraction of the potential damages.” 
The National Academy of Science has stated that it is not connected in any way with the Oregon Petition.
According to Ross Gelbspan's 1995 article The Heat Is On, Lindzen was one of three expert witnesses that were hired to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a “$400 million consortium: of coal suppliers and coal-powered utilities.” 
The hearings were to determine the environmental cost of burning coal by state power plants.
May 24-25, 1993
Lindzen took part in a conference titled “Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process,” that was organized by SEPP and George Mason University's International Institute.
The conference invited numerous journalists to a “special media session,” where the organizers went through the conference's overall themes which were described as follows:
“The conference discussion underscored two themes: (1) the need for stringent, open, external peer-review of the scientific basis of federal environmental actions, and (2) distortions in the teaching of environmental issues, i.e. 'Who peer-reviews what is being taught under the guise of environmental education?'” 
Lindzen spoke on a panel that accused any scientists supporting the conclusion of AGW (Anthropogenic [man-made] Global Warming) of “distorting the issues,” “distorting logic,” “using science to advance a political agenda,” and even “intimidating other scientists through coercion.”
Lindzen is a signatory to the Heidelberg Appeal. The Heidelberg Appeal was created by the International Centre for Scientific Ecology, a public relations front group, during the 1992 UN World Summit. Eventually the document was endorsed by 4,000 scientists who declared that “we are worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology [man-made global warming] which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.”
The document also says that “many essential human activities are carried out by manipulating hazardous substances, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces.”
Dr. Fred Singer and the International Centre for Scientific Ecology consented to the tobacco giant Philip Morris' use of the Heidelberg Appeal to draw support to its European branch of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)—TASSC Europe.
TASSC was Philip Morris's front group initiated to question the science that showed the devastating effects of smoking on the human body.
According to his curriculum vitae and Google Scholar, Dr. Lindzen has published numerous articles in the field of climatology, with many appearing in peer- reviewed journals.
“Curriculum Vitae: Richard Siegmund Lindzen” (PDF), MIT, February 10, 2010.
Lesley Curwen. “Science climate conflict warms up,” BBC News, April 26, 2007.
Richard S. Lindzen. “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus,” Regulation (CATO Institute), Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 1992).
Richard S. Lindzen. “Don't Believe the Hype,” Wall Street Journal (Opinion), July 2, 2006. Archived July 5, 2006.
Craig D. Rose. “Sempra forums set to address global warming,” U-T San Diego, February 14, 2007.
“Is Global Warming a Myth?”, Scientific American, April 8, 2009.
“Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” December 13, 2007. Reprinted by the Science and Public Policy Institute.
“SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION,” Science and Environmental Policy Project. Archived September 28, 2006.
David Adam. “Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world,” The Guardian, August 19, 2005.
“Climate Experts Respond to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment” (Press Release), Frontier Center For Public Policy, November 20, 2004.
“MIT Climatologist Richard S. Lindzen To Address Cooler Heads Coalition,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, September 30, 2002.
“Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001” (PDF). Accessed January, 2012, from eaps.mit.edu.
Ross Gelbspan. “THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial,” Harper's Magazine, December 1995. Republished at dieoff.org.
“Richard S. Lindzen,” The Independent Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Heartland Experts: Mr. Richard Lindzen,” The Heartland Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Academic Advisory Council,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Accessed January, 2012.
“Dr. Richard Lindzen,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Richard S. Lindzen,” Tech Central Station. Archived September 21, 2003.
“No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012.
“The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction,” Skeptical Science, January 31, 2012.
“The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery,” Media Transparency, January 30, 2012.
“Richard S. Lindzen,” SourceWatch Profile.
“Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precendents,” Journal of American Physicans and Surgeons, Fall 2013.
“Richard Lindzen,” Cato Institute, Accessed May 5, 2014.
Richard Lindzen. “Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm,” Cato Institute, September 18, 2014. Archived October 1, 2014.