Posted on 06/18/2025 6:11:42 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Carbon dioxide, we’ve been told over and again, is the enemy that must be subdued if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming. It is, however, a faulty premise. Physics, not politics, tells us that man’s CO2 emissions will not cause catastrophic climate change nor an increase in extreme weather.
“The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that ‘elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated’ to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,” conclude the authors of a new paper.
Richard Lindzen and William Happer are not political hacks. They are serious researchers with extensive experience and robust academic backgrounds. Lindzen is emeritus professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Happer a Princeton University emeritus physics professor. What they have to say is important in a world that is sodden with climate-related myths and folk tales.
While Democrats and their leftist counterparts in other advanced nations have gone to war on carbon dioxide, Lindzen and Happer argue that cutting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and eliminating fossil fuel use “will have a trivial effect on temperature.”
How can they say this? After all, don’t 97% of scientists agree that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is causing our world to overheat? (They don’t, more on that later.)
Lindzen and Happer confidently make those statements because “unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis” behind the rush to net zero GHG emissions as well as the EPA’s claim that “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”
They use the term “unscientific” because the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “is government controlled and thus only publishes government opinions, not science.” The summaries for policymakers that are produced by the IPCC are “approved line by line by member governments,” which “override any inconsistent conclusions scientists write for IPCC reports.”
The pair cite a 1995 report that was rewritten to say “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” and was the opposite of the language from a draft composed by independent scientists. Not only has the IPCC failed to correct this fabrication, it “has repeatedly reported the same false science ever since.”
Inconsistent with the climate narrative but consistent with reality, Lindzen and Happer also point out that CO2 is not only a weak greenhouse gas, its impact decreases as its atmospheric levels rise.
“It becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called ‘saturation.’ Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in ‘radiative forcing,’ or in temperature.”
Simply put, “the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC’s words ‘the main driver of climate change’ is scientifically false.”
Now, back to the 97% claim. It relies on the dubious assertion that the acknowledgment by many that man’s CO2 emissions have a mild, harmless influence on the climate is the same as believing that man is causing a catastrophe. These are conflicting positions yet they are lumped together in the 97% for political purposes.
“The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research,” former Heartland Institute president and chief executive Joseph Bast and University of Alabama in Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer wrote in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.
Furthermore, science is not determined by consensus, Lindzen and Happer remind us, it is guided by experiment and observations.
The climate change tale is based on such a wobbly foundation, and its adherents screech so loudly and shade the truth so often that we can’t help but believe they know they’ve been intentionally misleading the public.
Maybe we’ve reached a Solzhenitsyn moment in which we know they’re lying, they know they’re lying, and they even know that we know they’re lying. And they still don’t care, because for them it’s all about raw political power and the acquisition of other people’s money.
What if? It is a lie. All mammals exhale CO2. CO2 is part of nature’s cycle.
WEF Mandate.
“IF”? I have ZERO doubt it’s been a plan as soon as ‘they’ figured how much money could be scammed. A LOT!
Have always said there is a correlation between Population and Co2 necessary to feed that population. Go back and you will see how that measures out.
Analysis of ice cores has shown that warming precedes CO2 rise by several centuries.
If?
Don’t tell Al Gore, but the fact that he is lying and exaggerating is the actual Inconvenient Truth
I still remember THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT of the 1960s.
Then THE COMING ICE AGE of the 1970s,
GLO-BULL WARMING! 1980s.
And now CLIMATE CHANGE!
And nothing happened.
Well said, Eli!
This ‘scare’ campaign began when James Hansen (of NOAA GISS then) opened all the windows in the (Senate?) hearing room the night before (making the room hot and humid with the A/C struggling to cool the room back down) he was to testify in 1988 before a committee ...
1988 - and how many prognostications of ‘doom and gloom’ on ‘globull warming’ and oceans rising have COME AND GONE?
“It’s all about Control and Money”
They already have both, so it’s more, and when Conservatives FINALLY really realize what their end-point is, it will probably be too late to stop them.
Here is a good list of “climate scares” over the years:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
"...Inconsistent with the climate narrative but consistent with reality, Lindzen and Happer also point out that CO2 is not only a weak greenhouse gas, its impact decreases as its atmospheric levels rise..."
I read once where Leftists liken the rising CO2 levels to a pane of glass that has thin paint applied to it, blocking light. NOTE: They use the "thin paint" as the analogy, because the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are so small. It is clear that most people don't know how small the concentration of CO2 is. For example, as an analogy, to visualize the concentration of gasses in the atmosphere as the length of a football field, 100 yards long.
Leftists say there are a lot of things in nature where small amounts of things cause big effects, and that is no doubt true, but...CO2 is not one of those things. Water Vapor (as a gas) exists in FAR larger concentrations, and is a more powerful "greenhouse gas"
Leftists use the CO2 in the "thin paint" analogy, where the first layer of thin paint blocks some light, the second layer blocks more, and so on until all light is blocked. CO2 does not work in that fashion, and this has been studied and confirmed.
And this is just one of their deliberate lies. Of many.
What if? Seriously? The Global warming scam has made billions for a whole lot of criminals.
The climate change idea was alway a fake as far as I could tell. Those who made money off it should, im my opinion, be jailed.
“Power” taking advantage of ‘the true pandemic.’
It ain’t rocket science.
(but it IS an IQ test)
It seems to me the media cannot say the L** word.
What if?!!!
There’s no “what if” here...
Next to the seizure, by communists, of the education system 55 years ago, global climate change has been the second-most-important tool developed by the communists in their inexorable march to the WH...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.