Skip to content
Advertisements

MIT climate scientist derides climate ‘catastrophism’

November 20, 2015

  According to this article a group of climate scientists met in Texas to discuss the global warming hysteria and they had some interesting things to say. Here is more:

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”

“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.  — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.

People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.

“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said.

“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.

  And this comes from an MIT climate scientist but of course he will be ignored by the global warming alarmists. He mentioned NOAA and NASA, although not by name, adjusting the historical global temperatures and used this as an example to show proof that while the alarmists argue over hundredths of a degree the alarmists are really only certain in the range of tenths of a degree but I take it one step further: I think it is proof they are finagling the numbers to make it appear as if the earth is warming when in fact it is not.

  But  Dr. Lindzen was not alone in his skepticism, here is what Dr. Happer, a Princeton physicist, had to say:

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.

“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.

“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.

Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

    The global warming alarmists continue to claim the science is settled because 97% of scientists say it is real and it is a problem yet I have written several posts about more and more scientists coming out against this notion and still the alarmists continue to tout the same number when it obviously is going down.

  The reason for this is simple: this is not about saving the planet because it has become, as Dr. Lindzen pointed out, a political issue. And let us not forget that Dr. Happer mentioned the whole CO2 argument is Orwellian in nature, which is something many of us have been saying for years. And yet the beat goes on…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements
22 Comments leave one →
  1. November 21, 2015 12:44 am

    If findings don’t bring in money, control and servitude the rulers won’t have anything to do with the facts. Their play is based on sensationalism, emotionalism and lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    • November 21, 2015 9:11 am

      100% right Zip, their whole argument is based on emotion and they are indoctrinating the weakest among us, our children, as soon as they can and before they can reason in an effort to make this the truth in the eyes of the next generation. The worst part is I think than next generation is already here.

      Liked by 2 people

      • November 21, 2015 12:46 pm

        Another reason for setting the stage for people ‘not to grow up’ and be mature men and women knowing truth from error. Reminds me of the Peter Pan (syndrome) movie w/ Robin William (a pawn for the Industry) who chose to grow up, but did he really? He was ‘child-like’ even in his physical grownup stage. Illusion. Compared to the actors/actress of the 30s-50s men were men and women were women and both were glad of it! There were a few homos and commies but it was rare. Today we have the generation your referring to, lacking in mettle and real direction. Like “Safe Spaces” on Campuses today – you ‘really’ introduced that ‘thinking’ into the liberal mania education system? Same source behind the Climate Ruse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • November 22, 2015 7:35 am

        A good analogy! They do not want the adults to really be adults but rather grown children who need assistance and government guidance throughout their whole lives.

        Like

  2. lou222 permalink
    November 21, 2015 8:15 am

    This is what I have been saying for years! There will always be alarmists trying to scare people into doing what THEY want them to do. The earth will take care of herself, I have no doubt there. We will become extinct and the earth will live on with another form of inhabitants after us.
    You get these “experts” that know everything that you are supposed to believe. They told us that cholesterol was bad for the body and then shove everyone on statin drugs (not me). Well, the body has to have cholesterol to function and everyone is different on what levels they need. There are people with HIGH cholesterol that are just fine, but give them the ability to measure the levels and they have you. Don’t they want to put 12 year old kids on the meds not, to ward off having high cholesterol?
    I believe the same is being done with CO2, if they can measure the output, they can preach to us about what the authorities believe the numbers should be. It is going to ruin the country by doing this. Look what it has done to the states that have coal and the people that HAD jobs!
    This is too early to start a rant, so will stop with this. We need to get a handle on these experts and their handlers! Bravo for these brave men to step forward and buck the system.

    Liked by 2 people

    • November 21, 2015 9:13 am

      You are exactly right, CO2 is necessary for plant life on this planet. It cannot be a pollutant, it is part of nature but if you asked 100 school children that today I wonder how many of them know that is true.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. lou222 permalink
    November 21, 2015 9:28 am

    Here is another article about the UN I had posted a day or two ago. This is something that needs to be passed around quickly!
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/19/planned-un-hub-in-washington-aims-to-influence-us-counterterrorism-strategy/

    Liked by 1 person

    • lou222 permalink
      November 21, 2015 9:39 am

      I have always said that Obama is positioning himself for the head honcho of the UN, this is making me believe I was probably right. I hate being right about some stuff like this. After reading the article, please read the comments further down, they are even more telling of what the American people think of the UN and Obama. Would you have believed a few years before Obama took over that we would be at this critical stage in Americas life? We knew he was going to be bad news, it is a shame that others didn’t listen and had to be politically and racially correct to vote in the first black president, he really isn’t, but they sure felt he was. Carson would be, not Obama. Obama is who he needs to be at the time to get his plans pushed thru.

      Liked by 2 people

      • November 22, 2015 7:36 am

        I also think he wants to be head of the UN. President of the US is okay for him but he wants something bigger.

        Liked by 2 people

      • November 22, 2015 1:25 pm

        Gosh, who’s ‘ego’ and ‘pride’ does that remind you of?!!
        The source is the same behind the madness, confusion and pride!
        “and ye shall be as gods …” (Gen 3:5) connect that w/ “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (Isaiah 14:14). That’s not a ‘spirit’ that’s for us – rather self serving and against us.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. November 21, 2015 10:36 am

    This article completely debunks the false ‘97% of scientists agree’ mantra.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt10082015&utm_term=Jolt

    Liked by 1 person

    • lou222 permalink
      November 21, 2015 11:32 am

      What a great video clip that was, Laura. Mr Aaron Mair is sticking to the talking points he has been given to back up what the Obama Administration has told him he could say. It IS strange that he kept having to lean back and check what he can and cannot say with the handlers in back of him. Ted Cruz kept at him and showed just how one sided and point sticking this man was. Ted has a way of staying calm in his questioning and keeps plugging away at his “victims”. I really like his style! He also brings up the fact of what it is costing US, the tax payers to keep this lying group of crap functioning.

      Liked by 1 person

    • November 22, 2015 7:39 am

      Great article, thanks for sharing it!

      Like

  5. lou222 permalink
    November 21, 2015 11:34 am

    Just want to let you all know, I have grandbabies coming Sunday thru Friday, so will be reading, but not posting as much, unless I am up late….a Nana has her priorities ;).

    Liked by 1 person

    • November 22, 2015 7:40 am

      Have fun!

      Like

      • lou222 permalink
        November 22, 2015 10:42 am

        Will do. They will arrive around 2 today, so finishing up what I need to do before they come.
        Was upset to hear that Edwards got in as the next Governor of Louisiana instead of Vitter. Not crazy about Vitter, but Edwards said first on his list is to increase Medicaid in Obamacare, so we know which side he is on, besides being a Democrat. Jindal had served out as much as he could with term limits set for him.
        I do not like to pick anyone apart physically, BUT, Edwards looks pretty evil! I think it is the eyebrows!

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/21/louisiana-picks-democrat-as-next-governor-rejecting-once-heavily-favored-gop-candidate/

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Bruce permalink
    November 21, 2015 2:20 pm

    Dennis Prager quoted a spokeswomen from the UN climate something-or-another who at least was honest when she said the goal was to change the economic model. There it is. So, if the economic model in the west is some form of democratic capitalism, then a change would have to be to socialism/communism. Is there another?

    Liked by 3 people

    • lou222 permalink
      November 21, 2015 2:50 pm

      It makes sense, Bruce. Things are starting to come together.

      Liked by 1 person

    • November 22, 2015 7:41 am

      That is exactly what it is all about, the global redistribution of wealth. It is not often you hear one of them admit it.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. November 25, 2015 9:50 am

    Reblogged this on Cmblake6's Weblog and commented:
    Straight up, Steve does find some really good stuff!

    Liked by 1 person

    • November 25, 2015 7:46 pm

      Thanks for the reblog!

      Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. MIT climate scientist derides climate ‘catastrophism’ | Rifleman III Journal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: