There is a great overview of MIT’s Richard Lindzen in the Weekly Standard! An excerpt:
In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process. Before his 40th birthday, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In the mid-1980s, he made the short move from Harvard to MIT, and he’s remained there ever since. Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.
By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.
For those who think doubters of “Climate Change” don’t care about the environment, or pollution, or somehow discount science, nothing could be further from the truth.
We simply don’t accept that the hysteria is based on good and accurate science, and many of us see the proposed “solutions” as exceedingly harmful to people—especially the most vulnerable and poor around the world.
The models used to predict catastrophe have failed—and when the facts don’t match your theory, you need to change. Unless… your goal is not truth and authentic science, but getting a piece of the massive grant money out there or, as a politician and businessman, gaining power and wealth from the “solutions.”