MIT climate scientist on ‘hottest year’: ‘The hysteria over this issue is truly bizarre’ – Warns of return ‘back to the dark ages’
Full Audio of Lindzen’s interview.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences ridiculed the media hyped claims that 2016 was the “hottest year” on record. Lindzen was on The Howie Carr Show on January 18 to discuss “global warming” and the latest science and the political motivations behind the movement.
Lindzen on “Hottest Year” claims: (Load of bollocks: 2016 allegedly ‘hottest year’ by immeasurable 1/100 of a degree – While satellites show ‘pause’ continues)
“What happens if your body temp goes up a tenth of a degree, how much do you worry about that? To imply that a rise of temperature of a tenth of a degree is proof that the world is coming to an end — has to take one back to the dark ages.”
“They are talking about temperature data that is rather uncertain. How do you average? You have to make adjustments. That gives them an opening, you can always adjust it up to a quarter of a degree and you will notice that all of the adjustments that are frequently made, always make the temperature seem steeper. They lower the low, they increase the high. In this case (hottest year) they had to depress the high in 1998 to make this one (2016) look a little larger.
But when you are finished you are talking about 2/10ths of degree. No one can feel it. Referring to the New York Times hyping of the “hottest year,” Lindzen added, “Oh boy, can the New York Times can feel it!”
“As long as you can get people excited as to whether it’s a tenth of a degree warmer or cooler, then you don’t have to think, you can assume everyone who is listening to you is an idiot,” he added, noting that “the temperature of the last 20 years is way below what any of the models predicted.”
As to to 2/10ths of degree or a tenth of a degree, nobody can really feel it, not even the New York Times with their immense sensitivity,” Lindzen joked. He also noted that “sea level rise has been going on for 10,000 years, what’s the big deal?”
Adjusting data: “The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn’t done much of anything. What they don’t mention is there has been a big El Nino in 2016 and in recent months the temperature has been dropping back into a zero trend level.”
“There is a really simply test. If you are data is uncertain, there will be corrections and roughly speaking it will be 50/50, one way the other way. When they are all in one direction, you know something is fishy.
“The hysteria over this issue is truly bizarre. It depends on who you are. If you are interested in big government, this is, they hope this is the easy way to nationalize energy. If you are less attuned to these policy issues, I guess it gives you something to believe in. It’s a religion.
How long will “global warming” movement last?
“It’s got to come to an end. It’s doing so much damage. I mean we are really getting to the point where its trillions of dollars of wasted money.”
“I am surprised it lasted this long. I thought in 1988, when I saw this, I thought ‘this can’t last.’ I was mistaken. Between 1988 and 1993, the budget for broadly speaking climate science, went from $300 million to about $3 billion.
On global cooling fears in 1970s
“In the 1960s, they decided climate would be a good hook for energy policy. They started with cooling. that didn’t work out too well so they switched to warming. It didn’t matter, it was always the same villain, the same policy. But it caught on.”
Rules for Propaganda
“What are the rules of propaganda. If you are going to lie, lie big. And capture the narrative and repeat it incessantly. If you succeed in doing that, the truth begins to sound crazy.
Fossil Fuel industry funding skeptics?
“The fossil fuel industry has always tried to play it safe with public relations. The only large sum ExxonMobil ever gave was to Stanford University for promoting global warming. That was a $100 million bucks. (See: Flashback: Exxon-Led Group Is Giving a Climate Grant to Stanford U. — $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming)
“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,
“Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”
‘Groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.’
“Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen at DC climate summit: ‘The only meaningful question would be whether we are seeing anything sufficiently unusual to warrant concern and the answer to this is unambiguously no.’
Lindzen used a quote to explain the climate change movement saying it has ‘degenerating into a racket. And those who benefit in the racket will defend it with passion.’
97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: ‘They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?’
Lindzen: ‘These guys think saying climate changes, saying it gets warmer or colder by a few tenths of a degree should be taken as evidence that the end of the world is coming.’
MIT’s Dr. Lindzen in WSJ: ‘The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics’ – ‘Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm…even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating’