Top Climate Scientist Slams Climate Alarm: Carbon Dioxide Is A “Particularly Ridiculous” Choice As A Pollutant

Top Climate Scientist Slams Climate Alarm

Warming by carbon dioxide is logarithmic due to ‘saturation’ within the infrared spectrum, and any future doubling of the gas in the atmosphere will be associated with the same warming of around 1°C.

This is considered obvious by atmospheric scientist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and hardly controversial — although in today’s politicized environment, where CO2 has been forged into a scary and taxable ‘stick’ to bop the global population over the head with, this thinking does fatally undermine the ‘settled’ science concept of the AGW Party and so is regarded as heresy punishable by censorship and demonetization.

Professor Lindzen notes that the present “absurd ‘scientific’ narrative” leaves us with a quasi-religious movement — atop of all this has been the ”constant Goebellian repetition by the media of climate alarm”.

In a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Lindzen warns that unless we wake up to the absurdity of the motivating narrative, “this is only likely to be the beginning of the disasters that will follow from the current irrational demonization of CO2”, disasters which include the “hobbling” of Western energy systems.

Carbon Dioxide Is A “Particularly Ridiculous” Choice As A Pollutant

Lindzen considers it “absurd” to assume that the controlling factor for temperature changes Earth’s complex three-dimensional climate system is the small contribution of CO2.

He notes the evidence from the Antarctica Vostok ice core that showed cooling preceded decreases in COduring the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years; and for the paleoclimatic record, which goes back 600 million years, it is shows “no suggestion of any correlation with carbon dioxide at all.”

Carbon dioxide is a “particularly ridiculous” choice as a pollutant, continues Lindzen, because its primary role is as a fertilizer and currently “almost all plants are starved of CO2”.

And so it follows, if we were to remove 60% of CO2 from the atmosphere, the consequences would be dire, but not via a drop in the global temperature, as the modern day propaganda would have you believe, but rather from mass dying of vegetation, leading to “death by starvation for all animal life”.

The “one dimensional” view of the world’s climate, and the way the ‘greenhouse’ effect and the role of CO2 dominates the warming narrative, is deeply concerning to Lindzen, who notes that the Earth has many climate regimes and that there have been “profound” changes in temperature between the tropics and the polar regions over millennia. During these times, the temperature at the tropics has remained little changed, a situation we observe in the current climate record.

Lindzen argues that temperature changes are caused by dynamic heat flows in the atmosphere and the oceans caused by latitudinal differences in temperatures –or ‘baroclinic instability’ to give it a scientific term– concluding that changes in average temperature “are primarily due to changes in the tropic-to-pole difference, and not to changes in the greenhouse effect”.

The Politics

It has proven very profitable to blame ALL climate changes on just one trace atmospheric gas. TPTB have really outdone themselves with this one. The corruption of scientific integrity and the demonizing of alternative lines of thinking are the most malevolent achievements in human history — to control the direction of 8 billion souls with ‘Their Science’ is shocking.

Lindzen has been a long time critic of the AGW Party.

In his GWPF paper, he notes the words of late U.S. President Eisenhower, uttered in 1961:

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
34th U.S. President

Lindzen says the UN-backed IPCC is “government-controlled and only issues government-dictated findings”. And, along with fellow atmospheric scientist Professor William Happer of Princeton, told a recent U.S. Government inquiry that current climate science literature was “a joke”, and was “pal review, not peer review”.

The links between climate science and grant-providing politicians are well known, and not particularly well concealed. In 2013, then-head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, told the Guardian: “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”

“CO2 Has Almost No Effect On Global Temperature”

It should be obvious free from the clutches of AGW Party brainwashing that one of the great drivers of continual changes in the climate is heat exchange within both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.

It should also be noted that our current understanding of the climate system is very limited. Vast gaps in our knowledge base exist, gaps that have been opportunistically exploited and filled by the ‘carbon dioxide boogeyman’.

new paper written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Center, argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system.

If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, Kininmonth points out, adding that “Efforts to decarbonize in the hope of cooling the planet will be in vain” as CO2 has “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.

Kininmonth is confident that the recent gentle warming is “probably simply the result of fluctuations in the ever-changing ocean circulation”. CO2 “must be recognized” as a very minor contributor to the observed warming, one that is unlikely to prolong the warming trend beyond the peak generated by the natural oceanic oscillations. He explains that the main driver of global temperature is the movement of energy in water, both in the oceans and the atmosphere after evaporation.

Tropical oceans have warmed recently, though not due to rising atmospheric CO2, as the dogma would have you believe, but rather by a reduction of heat as ocean currents have observably slowed. Heat has been exchanged with the tropical atmosphere, and transported by the winds to enhance Arctic warming which has been greater in recent years than elsewhere on the globe.

Ocean temps have warmed much less in the tropics than in the Arctic, and Arctic warming has occurred predominantly during the cold winter half of the year, when the surface is largely in darkness, implying, according to Kininmonth, that it can only be the result of heat transport from warmer latitudes.

Kininmonth’s conclusions, while open for scientific debate, do offer a plausible explanation as to why temperatures at the South Pole have barely moved for 50+ years. And to that point, ‘global’ warming should mean exactly that, right? Yet the AGW Party routinely fails to explain how the Arctic can warm yet the Antarctic remain stable (or even cool, as some data suggest).

Imprecise science often ends up being fed into climate models, along with improbable guesses of massive CO2-caused future global warming. But as Dr. John Christie, Professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama, recently noted: “Models fail to reproduce accurate energy flows, and this is the guts of how the climate system works.”

The truth always outs, eventually. The fabric of reality can only be bent for so long. Unfortunately in this case, though, it is looking like billions of people will first have to endure immense pain –via fuel poverty/shortages and energy-driven inflation– before the penny finally drops.