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.
Over the past several years I’ve been asked to comment on the notion that there is on-going an active, presumably by the US Government, classified program to use emissions from airborne aircraft to cut down on sunlight arriving at the Earth’s surface for nefarious purposes. The group promulgating this topic is GeoEngineering Watch. They call the supposedly nefarious emissions “Chemtrails.”
Especially if you live in New Mexico, you might think Climate Activists have lost the power of critical thought, and you’d be right; here are some reasons why.
Robert W. Endlich
Acknowledgements: In 2015 Michael Wallace pointed out to me that the Kort et al Methane map published in the 16 Sep 2014 GRL publication “Four corners: The largest US methane anomaly viewed from space,” did not match up with other Methane maps which correctly showed large Methane concentrations in east Texas’ swamps. Dave Tofsted helped with my 18 Jun 2016 presentation on Methane Madness, and this post.
The rise of Climate Activism came about in the late 20th century; there is a good discussion of the history of this topic by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
[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.’