Paper prepared by Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Steven Koonin and submitted April 16, 2024.
Summary provided below and the entire paper can be accessed here: Lindzen Happer Koonin climate science 4-24.
THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE WEST IF FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHG EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”
- CO2 is Essential to Our Food, and Thus to Life on Earth
- More CO2, Including CO2 from Fossil Fuels, Produces More Food.
- More CO2 Increases Food in Drought-Stricken Areas.
- Greenhouse Gases Prevent Us from Freezing to Death
- Enormous Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
- “Net Zeroing” Fossil Fuels Will Cause Massive Human Starvation by Eliminating Nitrogen Fertilizer
THE IPCC IS GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AND THUS ONLY ISSUES GOVERNMENT OPINIONS, NOT SCIENCE
SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER
- Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data
- The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.
- 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
- Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
- The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Other GHGs is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid
Yet they force feed our children, in government run schools, this Anxiety Porn. That horseshite spoon fed to them by forcing them to sit through an ALGORE shitshow has created millions of Greta Thunbergs who vote for the sole belief that a global central authority can protect them from themselves. The whole AGW experiment stands as proof of Mark Twain’s observation that “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Especially if you feed them foolish lies in grade school.
You must be one of those people who can define what a woman is.
Awww…scared of a rainbow? 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
Nawww … just hate sick Leftist ideological pedophiles that groom children and pander to neurotic parents that are on-board with chemical and surgical mutilation of minors. The rest of the world is moving away from such barbaric practices; join now or be dragged along by the criminal and civil courts.
I can basically smell your fear by the way you lap up every kind of misinformation.
Or as bill said it: Anxiety Porn. You have your own, and lots of it.
You know every trick in the playback, huh?
First, redirect off topic then claim your target is motivated by fear based on misinformation.
Thanks, I had great teachers here.
You are teachable? I see no evidence to support such a belief.
Ahh Mark, but he is brainwashable and that cranium of his is filled with the shiniest nonsense know to man. Not unlike a BORG drone he has been sent forth to assimilate the unsuspecting on comment boards and social media accounts. What he fails to realize is resistance to his nonsense is not futile and his load of crap slides off this board without leaving a stench.
Those catholic priests… Yeah, I bet they “taught” you many things.
Misinformation? “ The rest of the world is moving away from such barbaric practices; join now or be dragged along by the criminal and civil courts.”
You might not care for his rhetoric, but he is probably right that medical malpractice suits are on their way.
The publication of the Cass Report in the UK is making a very large difference to the way progressive opinion regards gender dysphoria and the treatments for it that have become routine in recent years. The closure of the Tavistock service was an earlier sign of a sea change in progressive opinion. Another sign was the veto by the UK Government of the Scottish proposed legislation on self-declaration of gender. Still another was the recent ban on puberty blockers by the UK National Health Service.
The issue is not trans people, either as individuals or as a category. The issue that has come to dominate discussion is whether the treatments have been evidenced to be safe and effective, and the verdict is increasingly that they are none of these.
Notice that he is restricting his comment to treatment. He is not expressing any distaste for anyone or any class of person. In this he’s actually in line with the emerging consensus in progressive opinion, though he expresses his view rather more emotionally than most would.
Here is the Cass Report. Its worth reading carefully. She is a well qualified, competent, experienced and level headed investigator who has just looked at the evidence. And what she has found does indeed prompt a fundamental rethink.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
And there he goes again, just declaring that opposing opinions are proof of fear.
Luser likes those little girls and boys.. that’s where it finds its mental equals and people it can dominate.
Just needs to drag them down to its sewer level of morality so it will have someone to play with…
Yes, we fear for the children, and the damage that sick-minded Lusers do.
Actually you are projecting username. The anxiety is being forced upon young chillun and their publicly school indoctrinated low information helicopter mothers, who are made to believe that young boys prancing around in mom’s high heels and young girls climbing trees were born into the wrong body and the remedy is cutting off their mellons, twigs and berries before they reach the age of consent.
People who disagree with you are not plagued with anxiety or phobias, they believe that type of sexual persuasion should not be part of a public school curriculum and that books explaining and mostly glamorizing said lifestyle should be found at Barnes & Noble not the public school library which in and of itself would put to lie the leftist argument that conservatives want to ban books. In essence there is nothing honest about the Leftist ideology being support and promoted by our legacy media in the 21st century.
I actually like rainbows.
It really is amazing how those on the left actually believe that everyone who disagrees with them, is afraid of them.
It must be nice for them to be able to live in a world in which thinking for yourself is no longer required.
You really do live in a confused and degenerate part of society, don’t you, you poor thing.
Nope. I think science DNA rules.
The goal is to make as many poor people as possible. Climate change is just an excuse.
According to some, the aim is to make a few people as possible.
And this guy isn’t the only one
Activist-Scientist Explains What’s Needed To Avert Warming: Culling Humans – Climate Change Dispatch
There are trillions in profits to be made by the millionaires and billionaires who own the media and want to sell so-called “climate change” solutions. The long-term climate is still a 2.5 million-year ice age, and that isn’t changing anytime soon.
China brought 800 million out of poverty using fossil fuels.
If China were denied fossil fuels, these people would regress to poverty.
The same would happen in India, etc.
Even the most obtuse folks among politicians would agree on that point
The world gets 78% of all its energy from fossil fuels. The rest is mostly hydro and nuclear.
plus some weather-dependent, bulls..t sources, called wind and solar.
STORY TIP;https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-blobs-in-the-pacific-ocean-finally-have-their-origins-revealed
chinas cleanup dunnit!
Unlikely, particulates also absorb IR from the surface and act a little like clouds. That is a warming effect also. The cooling effect of aerosols usually requires them to reach into the stratosphere. This looks like more climate pseudo-science.
I thought the blobs were remnant masses of warm water that drifted north after El Nino events.
Report should contain a 2023 comparison of actual versus model predicted temperatures instead of Christie’s outdated 2016 one.
Good point.
I downloaded the paper and read through it. I have great respect for all three of the authors for their credentials and contributions. In so far that opinion from highly accomplished scientists is persuasive to the public, this is a good summary of the realistic view of the climate issue and a good takedown of the “Net Zero” goals and the policies against fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, I find it disappointing that there is so little attention to current observations from space and from reanalysis computations that directly demonstrate how incremental CO2 should not be expected to have any more than a negligible effect on the climate system. There is no good reason to think that these effects (of incremental non-condensing GHGs) can ever be isolated for reliable attribution.
[for more explanation, please see the three videos here and read the full text in each description box. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ ]
I agree. While they understand saturation is important, they are still missing the key physical reasons why it eliminates any warming.
Probably cause no one has shown that the increase in the mass can be over come by the increased DWLR.
Be sure to read the entire paper by Professors Lindzen, Happer, and Koonin (link at the beginning of this paper). It is a wonderful review of this topic. My thanks to each of them. I am forwarding the link to each of my county, state, and federal politicians here in northern Utah.
Additionally, I believe that proposed removal of CO2 from the air, via Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), is unproven and unnecessary, and a deplorable waste of taxpayer money.
Bottom line for me: We need more CO2 in the air, not less. Divert CCS funding to real problems (e.g., fixing the southern border situation, reducing debt, strengthening national defense).
DAC is not unproven, but it is undesirable for so many reasons. Not the least of which is the power required to capture CO2. Caustic scrubbing and conversion to CaCO2 then calcining emits almost as much CO2 from NG as is captured requiring additional energy for Oxy-Combustion of NG and amine scrubbing of CO2 from the process leading to more energy consumption. The scary part of this is that so many uninformed people think E-Fuels is the next big step to reduce GHG emissions. They have no clue how much power is required. Removing 1.1 million MT/year of CO2 requires 1.7 GW of continuous uninterrupted power and produces 8,000 bbl/day of fuel. We would need 2,500 of these facilities to replace the 20 Million bbl/day of energy the US consumes as crude oil. There is no way to produce that much continuous power from renewables.
1000 ppm or bust.
One has to doubt the efficacy of an educational system that can produce propaganda providers in the masses necessary to poison our children’s ability to think for themselves.
Who do these so called teachers think they are working for if not for the children themselves when they tell lies about the future effect of warming weather and/or what may be causing it when history tells us it has happened before without calamity?
Whatever happened to professional integrity in all and every walk of life?
“The theory extreme weather …. etc”.
I thought it was just a hypothesis, not a theory.
Correct term is a “WAG” — a wild a.. guess, usually wrong.
A hypothesis involves a testable proposition.
It barely qualifies as conjecture.
A baseless conjecture, unsupported by any scientific evidence whatsoever.
“Specifically, IPCC governments, not scientists, meet behind closed doors and control what is published in its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”), which controls what is published in full reports.
[Photo showing govt bureaucrats meeting to decide what goes into IPCC reports.]
This is not how scientific knowledge is determined. In science, as the Lysenko experience chillingly underscores, and as Richard Feynman emphasized: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.””
************
I sincerely hope that I am not the only one who is outraged that bureaucrats from the world’s governments are in control of the IPCC and are dictating what goes into its reports. Knowing that western democratically elected govts are part of this (including the U.S. and U.K.) seems especially egregious to me.
This seems to be the opposite of the way democratically elected govts are supposed to behave. It takes on the characteristic behavior of Orwellian Big Brother where the people become the manipulated and brainwashed pawns of govt instead of the ones govt is supposed to serve.
Recall again that Mann’s hockey stick graph was once in an IPCC report years ago. Lysenkoism indeed. If Trump wins in November, I pray that he will expose this whole thing. Sadly, I fear that he won’t.
……..and one other thing.
If the SPM is written first before the full reports, its seems to me that the IPCC is doing things backwards. A summary or conclusion is supposed to be written at the end of a report, is it not?
At least that is the way I wrote my papers and reports in college.
The SPM is indeed written first. Then the chapter summaries are written and they are required to conform to the SPM, then finally the chapters themselves are written, only data that matches the summaries is permitted into the final report.
A $billion or two would probably buy Trump off.
“submitted April 16, 2024”
Submitted where?
It seems to be to the CO2 Coalition: Home – CO2 Coalition
This is a fine report with a few nit-picks, as indicated in the (17+) comments prior to mine.
Its influence on the politicians in control of western nations (and the “green” globs) will be near zero. People, such as the POTUS and his advisors/controllers have internalized the axiom of Carbon Dioxide as the cause of climate catastrophe. Everything they see (say a tornado or a fire) reinforces that axiom.
Whatever destroys that belief will be fun to watch (if I live long enough), or it could devolve like “Tulip Mania” — but then buy-ins at least got a tulip.
STORY TIP
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/climate-change-heat-related-deaths-lancet-report/
Obvious nonsense.
As you say complete nonsense, I particularly like the precision of the uplift stated as 30.8%…
If the writers had any idea about the subject and a basic understanding of maths, they would not have added in the spurious ‘per 100,000’? If a condition changes by a certain percentage, then that is the defining metric. The scale of the group being measured won’t change anything.
Typo alert: There is a missing word in the first paragraph page 10 sentence:
“Unfortunately, this peculiar situation is particularly [ ? ] because many world leaders have abandoned the science and intellectual rigor bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment and its forebears.”
Unfortunately, most politicians have stuck their fingers in their ears and are yelling “Neener neener nyaah nyaah” at anyone trying to point this out, among the vast number of obvious things politicians need to have pointed out to them in modern times.
Linden et al missed another sizable effect of the “Great Greening”. I’ve pointed out on other threads that photosynthesis is an endothermic (cooling) process. Once established, added greenery increases the area of evapotranspiration which has a significant added cooling effect. NASA says since 1980 this has subtracted 0.2°C to 0.25°C from warming! They don’t seem to know about the endothermic process of photosynthesis, so let’s round up to 0.25C combined cooling effect of this process.
I’ve repeatedly presented the Le Châtelier Principle (LCP) as an indisputable actor as a control on climate change. In any multi component interacting system, any forced change (say rise in T° in the atmosphere) perturbing the system, is resisted by compensatory changes in all other components, such that the final result is a much reduced change from what was expected.
Let us say, even if you get “The Physics” right, you need to correct it with “the chemistry”. It is clear that the climate science physics for calculating T° change is is a ceteris paribus (all other things held constant) calculation which is invalid. I estimate (assuming in good faith) the ceteris paribus calc is roughly okay) that to answer Gavin Smith’s question: “Models are running a way too hot and we don’t know why”. You need to multiply in an LCP coefficient of 0.33.
Story Tip.
LOL…. And now they go after the fishermen… and wild pigs..
Using Nets On The Seafloor To Retrieve Seafood ‘Roughly The Same As Running 100 Coal-Fired Plants’ (notrickszone.com)
yuh, while trying to shut down much of agriculture and all forestry
Story Tip.
Population reduction by disease, is a “thing”
Activist-Scientist Explains What’s Needed To Avert Warming: Culling Humans – Climate Change Dispatch
I just sent that PDF file to the usual list of state officials, forestry people, greenies, academics, etc. here in Wokeachusetts. Merci!
Kudos.
This is a heart warming paper. Particularly the point stating – ‘ Atmospheric CO2 is now ‘ Heavily Saturated which in physics means more CO2will have little warming effect’
Current CO2 at 400ppm reduces absorbable CoO2 to extinction after a short transit through the atmosphere . Increasing [CO2] would not absorb more it would only reduce the transit distance to extinction
As there is 100 times more water vapour (H2O)n n in the atmosphere than CO2 the latter is of no significance anyway.
Who is the guest blogger for this story? I don’t see the name.
In addition to the beneficial impact of fossil fuels on food products and heating it is essential for producing more mundane carbonaceous things like plastic and medicine. Until somebody comes up with a replacement for carbon-based products that we use everyday it could be painful doing without them.
What will be the consequence of net zero energy? War.