MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’
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?'
Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, attributes climate hype to politics, money, and propaganda. Lindzen particularly takes issue with the “97% consensus” claim that is being used to stifle debate and demonize skeptics.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT:
Question: How much warming do you expect for a doubling of carbon dioxide?
Lindzen: “Doubling is chosen for a very good reason. The dependence of the greenhouse gas effects what is called logarithmic. Which means if you double CO2 from 280 to 560ppm, you would get the same thing you as you would get from doubling from 560 to 10120. It’s a diminishing return thing.”
“There is no obvious trend for at least 18 years in temperature.”
Lindzen on ‘97% consensus’:
Lindzen: “It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now 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?
If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.
MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’
Academia Cashing in on Climate Scare: MIT announces $300 million five-year plan ‘for action on climate change’ – Each center will seek about $8 million in annual funding, or more than $300 million in total over the five-year period — which the plan says represents “far and away the greatest opportunity for MIT to make a difference on climate change.”
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’ – Dueling Datasets: Satellite temperatures show no warming for over 18 years, while heavily adjusted ground based data shows alleged ‘hottest year’
Watch: MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen on Fox News: ‘The whole thing is fairly absurd’ – ‘We are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life – CO2’
Click here to watch: – 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.’
The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.
‘Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels