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 CO2 during the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years; and for the paleoclimatic record, which goes back 600 million years, it 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.”
Recommend this post and follow
The Life of Earth
No comments:
Post a Comment