if you have 56 minutes of spare time. Every minute in this Lindzen's talk is worth listening.
To summarize his main point:
1.Lindzen discussed how problematic it is to identify science with institutions. We have few gentleman scientists like Darwin of more than 100 years ago. Science has become a professional career. Pay attention to iron triangle shown by him.
2.He gave similar "moral" movements, the counterpart of global warming is the eugenics of 100 years ago. All the people then expressed their high moral standards by supporting eugenics just like people today supported global warming today. Some really meaningless, AGW-motivated research projects that got $400k are mentioned.
3.Lindzen recalled the era when "climatology" was only used for record keepers, an underappreciated group of lowly workers (Like I said in the post below, those climatologists only have high school diploma). Suddenly the climatologists become leading scientists today worshiped by ATL.
4.This part is very important to TN. Listen carefully. It’s about Global mean temperature from 1880 to now, your favorite graph/data . Lindzen challenge you by asking to what extent is globally and annually averaged temperature anomaly meaningful metric of climate? From earlier model, it clearly shows the Global mean temperature isn't an important driver of the temperature but just the residue in a calculation of things that actually matter for the climate change , equator-pole difference is more important. But they made attempt to raise equator temperature desperately to interpretation (CO2) going their way. But, the IPCC models incorrectly predicted the behavior of the equator-pole difference.
5.The annual temperature oscillation graph from 1960 to 1990 originally was pretty flat, a little bit above zero. It's not exciting, but if you change the scale, you can make it look exciting and significant in warming. Lindzen shows how you can't feel global warming – and how certain things about the weather may be accurately predicted through certain way.
6.Almost all empirically based methods suggest that the sensitivity (the magnitude of warming by CO2 green effect) is below 1 °C; IPCC gave us very likely 3 °C (with range 1-5 °C).
7.Global warming differs from eugenics and Lysenkoism. Unlike the two older examples, it has become a religion.
8.Even Ralph Cicerone, currently president of the National Academy of science climate denounced the catastrophicism
9.The rest of points that I missed above.
P.S. Just found and added the text version of Lindzen talk
Link: Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents