Mister MIT learned me good
Some of Lindzen's points:
All the diplomatic activity over global warming can alone lead one to believe that it is a major crisis. - (Not a scientific reason)
Many in the scientific community have discredited the more catastrophic predictions. - (Scientists against the threat of global warming)
Many scientists making these predictions are not experts in the field like Lindzen is. - (Less competent science supporting the treat of global warming)
A warming like ones being predicted wouldn't even be difficult to adapt to according to economists, agronomists, and hydrologists. - (Specialized scientists saying it’s not a real threat if it is happening)
Summary: capable scientists don't all agree on the ideas that are mostly propagated by less capable scientists or politicians. Also, many capable scientists in the appropriate specialized fields don't feel that the warming, if it occurs as predicted, would be a major threat to the planet or society.
In the rest of his argument he points out the flawed logic that turns the evidence into doomsday prophecies. One good example: Water vapor constitutes 98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is far more potent that CO2 and by far the most abundant greenhouse in the atmosphere, and we have no control over it. The remaining 2% that we have control over is fairly insignificant. And most likely if we burn all the fossil fuels we can we can't make the percentage in our control approach threatening levels.
I don't have a problem believing that the Earth's temperature is rising, although that point is minutely debatable. I don't even have much of a problem believing that it is our fault instead of a result of the mysterious climactic cycles of the Earth. Lindzen however makes it difficult for me to believe that global warming is the threat that most of us have been lead to believe.