Richard S. Lindzen
Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
[This essay is a slightly extended version of a lecture delivered to a joint zoom meeting of the Irish Climate Science Forum and CLINTEL on March 31, 2021.]
For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted
The exaggerated sensitivity,
The role of other processes and natural internal variability,
The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record,
The absence of evidence for increased extremes, droughts, floods, wild-fires, and so on.
We have also pointed out the very real benefits of CO2 and even of modest warming. And, as concerns government policies, we have been pretty ineffective. Indeed our efforts have done little other than to show (incorrectly) that we take the threat scenario seriously. In this talk, I want to make a tentative analysis of our failure.
[This post by Jennifer Marohasy originally appeared on her blog site on 20 July 2022. It is reproduced here under the fair use doctrine. Ed]
There was a time when it was possible to point out an error by way of a rebuttal published as a note in a scientific journal – even in the journal Nature, even when it went against the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming agenda. The late Patrick Michaels had a note published back in 1996 (vol. 384, pg. 522) explaining that there was a major error in research findings by Ben Santer – findings so significant they underpinned the key claim in the second IPCC report that ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’
[This post first appeared on Dr. Spencer’s web site (here) on 9 April 2022. We have reproduced it on our web site for the purpose of education and discussion under the fair use doctrine. Ed.]
The proper way of looking for causal relationships between time series data (e.g. between atmospheric CO2 and temperature) is discussed. While statistical analysis alone is unlikely to provide “proof” of causation, use of the ‘master equation’ is shown to avoid common pitfalls. Correlation analysis of natural and anthropogenic forcings with year-on-year changes in Mauna Loa CO2 suggest a role for increasing global temperature at least partially explaining observed changes in CO2, but purely statistical analysis cannot tie down the magnitude. One statistically-based model using anthropogenic and natural forcings suggests ~15% of the rise in CO2 being due to natural factors with an excellent match between model and observations for COVID-19 related downturn in global economic activity in 2020.
Via executive orders, regulatory edicts and partisan Green New Deal legislation, President Biden intends to slash US carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent below their 2005 peak by 2030, and eliminate them (and fossil fuel use) by 2050. But, as AOC’s former chief of staff noted, the GND is not just about transforming America’s energy
system; it’s about changing the entire economy.
[This article was original posted on Townhall.com on May 02, 2021 12:01 AM. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author. Ed.]
This radical transformation is driven by three fundamental articles of faith, none of them based on reality.