Lindzen, Happer: Climate Change Is “Misrepresentation, Exaggeration, Outright Lying”
Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as “a joke”.
According to Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, “it is pal review, not peer review”. The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science. “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they state.
No reliable scientific evidence can be provided either by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they say, which is “government-controlled and only issues government dictated findings”.
The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments. In their opinion, these summaries are “merely government opinions”.
They refer to the recent comments on climate models by the atmospheric science professor Alabama State Climatolgist John Christy, from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who says that, in his view, recent climate model predictions “fail miserably to predict reality”, making them “inappropriate” to use in predicting future climate changes.
The ’miserable failure’ is graphically displayed below. Since the observations cut-off, global temperatures have again paused.
Particular scorn is poured on global surface temperature datasets. Happer and Lindzen draw attention to a 2017 paper by Dr. James Wallace and others that elaborated on how over the last several decades, “NASA and NOAA have been fabricating temperature data to argue that rising CO2 levels have led to the hottest year on record”.
The false and manipulated data are said to be an “egregious violation of scientific method”. The Wallace authors also looked at the Met Office HadCRUT database and found all three surface datasets made large historical adjustments and removed cyclical temperature patterns.
This was “totally inconsistent” with other temperature data, including satellites and meteorological balloons, they said. Readers will recall that the Daily Sceptic has reported extensively on these issues of late and has attracted a number of somewhat footling ‘fact checks’.
Happer and Lindzen summarise: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence marshalled in support of the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by ‘fossil fuels’ and CO2.”
Professors Happer and Lindzen’s comments are included in a submission to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is seeking to impose massive and onerous ‘climate change’ reporting requirements on public companies.
But they form part of a wider scientific revolt by many scientists alarmed at the corruption of science to promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda.
Needless to say, these debates are largely ignored by mainstream media.
Opponents of Net Zero politicised science are denounced as ‘cranks’ and ‘deniers’, labels at odds with their distinguished scientific achievements. Between them, Happer from Princeton and Lindzen from MIT have around 100 years of involvement in atmospheric science.
Richard Lindzen was an early lead author for the IPCC, while William Happer was responsible for a groundbreaking invention that corrected the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence on imaging resolution.
In their submission, Happer and Lindzen supply a basic lesson in science: “Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinions or manipulated data”.
In the U.K., it will be interesting to see if Net Zero will feature as a major issue in the battle to find a new Prime Minister. At the moment, candidates seem to be steering a widish berth – something that can happen with virtuous green policies when actual votes are at stake.
Happer and Lindzen state firmly that “science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and therefore no reliable scientific evidence supporting the proposed rule”.
The rule in this case refers to the SEC climate requirement, but it could equally apply to Net Zero.
Many people now accept that a rigid Net Zero policy will lead to massive falls in living standards that will disproportionately affect the poorer in society, both in the U.K. and particularly in the developing world.
Contrary to the incessant attack on ‘fossil fuels’, write Happer and Lindzen, “affordable, abundant ‘fossil fuels’ have given ordinary people the sort of freedom, prosperity and health that were reserved for kings in ages past”.
Such prosperity, of course, has left the building in the case of Sri Lanka, where the prospect of famine and civil breakdown face 22 million people following (among other things) the decision of the Government to ban fertiliser in the interests of ‘climate change’ and ‘saving the planet’.
Such a collapse, with the President hastily fleeing the country, is likely to face any modern Net Zero society that seeks to tamper with reliable and affordable energy supply, restrict diet and try to grow enough food using ‘organic’ methods.
Happer and Lindzen state that reducing CO2 and the use of ‘fossil fuels’ would have “disastrous consequences” for the poor, people worldwide and future generations.
Both Happer and Lindzen have long held out against the current demonisation of atmospheric CO2, pointing out that the current 419 parts per million is near a record low and NOT dangerously high.
They note that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data “contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming”.
Omitting unfavourable data is an egregious violation of scientific method. Facts omitted by those who argue there is a climate emergency include that:
CO2 levels were over 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years and have been as high as over 7,000 ppm;
CO2 has been declining for 180 million years from about 2,800 ppm to today’s low; and
today’s low is not far above the minimum level when plants die of CO2 starvation, leading to all other life forms perishing for lack of food.
See more here: dailysceptic
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
Could not be a stronger warning about this nonsense and the dangers it is putting us in. Print this out, send it to all the PM candidates and the MSM and demand answers.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Well said Alan.
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
I am glad there are still real scientists out there speaking truth. Virtually every professor in every university in the UK is a climate loon, I am yet to meet one which speaks truth. Does anyone know of UK professor teaching in a UK university that slams the lies of climate change? If so please contact me so I can met them.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I’m sure John and I would join you at any such meeting!
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Good job, Gentlemen….we need more Lindzens and Happers…..lots more.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I am an experimental SCIENTIST, not a journalist who writes scientific articles. And when I checked whom CHRIS MORRISON was, I found: “Journalism Professor Gives Tips on How to Trick Sceptics into Supporting Climate Alarmism BY CHRIS MORRISON 27 JUNE 2022 An American journalism professor has offered tips on how to present climate change news in ways which trick global warming sceptics into unwittingly supporting the alarmist cause.”
Most PSI Articles you read are written by journalists and not by scientists. So beware.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Isn’t that an ad hominem complaint? What do you honestly think about the content of the piece?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Tom,
Key words are: “in ways which trick”. So I only suggested to a PSI Reader: Beware.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Just Me
| #
Jerry did you read the article that you referenced?
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/27/journalism-professor-gives-tips-on-how-to-trick-sceptics-into-supporting-climate-alarmism/
PSI is a good site.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
THE MEANING OF IT ALL (1998) by Richard P. Feynman is a transcript of a three lecture series he gave in 1963. In the first lecture, titled The Uncertainty of Science, he asked and stated: “What is science? … Science means, sometimes, special method of finding things out.” He went on to propose two other meanings of SCIENCE. But I consider the first to be of the upmost importance for he went on to state several pages later. “If you look closely enough at anything, you will see that there is nothing more exciting than the truth, the pay dirt of the scientist, discovered by his painstaking efforts.” And than, several pages later I read: “This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But “prove” used in this way really means “test” … for people today the idea really should be translated as, “The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
FreemenRtrue
| #
Profs Happer and Lindzen could put the whole scam to rest by insisting on a simple experiment. In a building ( eliminate sun and weather effects) install a plastic cloud containing CO2, transparent to IR. On the base of the building install an earthen plane gridded with resistance wire. Hold the earth temp at 90F and meter the energy input. Use normal air or various concentrations of CO2 for some lengthy runs to falsify the effects of thermal feedback from the cloud. If AGW science has any validity the effect must be measurable and calculable as well. Use two identical buildings to do simultaneous runs with differing and same atmospheres. This experiment would save the world countless billions of dollars for there could be no arguments about the data.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi FreemenRtrue,
“In a building ( eliminate sun and weather effects)”. Once one does this, one is not studying a NATURAL SYSTEM.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
FreemenRtrue.
You only have to look at your garden wall on a winters morning both side glistening with frost, one side will get full sun and just be wet in an hour, the other side will stay glistening with frost until either the air temp rises above freezing or the sun comes around and onto it.
That tells you all you need to know about the power of ”back radiation” and global warming via that method, the back radiation cannot melt frost never mind heat the earths surface by supplying 60% of the thermalising energy the surface receives in total as ”they” claim in the enhanced radiative greenhouse effect.
The surface of the earth is awash with back radiation, but it isn’t warming anything, it isn’t thermalising in anything as everything beneath its emitter is warmer than its atmospheric emitter, even frost.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Gary,
I live within a couple of miles of the local airport and on it website ir reports (on the hour, daylight time) the automated sky conditions (clear or clouds of various types), air temperature (AT), dew point temperature (DPT). Last night measurements were unique
For 10pm to 4am the sky condition (clear), the AT dropped from 64 to 62F, and the DPT was a constant 57F; at 5am the Sky was few clouds, AT 61F, DPT 56F; at Sky was overcast, AT 61F, DPT 57F.
The near constancy of the temperatures might seem unique to you and PSI Readers, but what was most unique to me was that 5am the vehicles in front of our house had not dew on either side but had dew on the hood, windshield, and roof. Usually when there is dew on these portions of the vehicles there is nearly always dew on both sides of the vehicles, just as I reported about frost in my other comment.
Can you, or others, explain why no dew formed on the sides of the vehicles last night?
I call this unique happening (coincidence) a GOD sighting.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Gary and others (Geraint, Andy Rowlands, …),
Gary, you wrote: “That tells you all you need to know about the power of “back radiation”,”
I just described actual observations and challenged you ‘smart’ guys: “Can you, or others, explain why no dew formed on the sides of the vehicles last night?” To date, I have not seen a reply to this challenge or any comment relative to it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Gary,
You have proposed an interesting natural system in which you predicted what would happen and what would not happen. “You only have to look at your garden wall on a winters morning both side glistening with frost, one side will get full sun and just be wet in an hour, the other side will stay glistening with frost until either the air temp rises above freezing or the sun comes around and onto it.”
But in your description you seem to be assuming a cloudless sky. What if there was a scattered cloud which was positioned so the scattered solar radiation by the cloud droplets was incident upon the frosty side? Or, what if there was a scattered cloud overhead so its cloud droplets were more strongly scattering, upward IR radiation being emitted by the warm surfaces directly heated by direct solar radiation, back toward the earth’s surface.
And I do not know what your proposed wall material is. However, I frequently see frost on both sides of vehicles parked along a curb when the air temperature is a few degrees above the freezing temperature.
If you had used an IR thermometer I doubt if you would have written what you did. It is still a very interesting natural system you have proposed and I wish we could observe it together with an IR thermometer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Eric the Red
| #
You can lead a scientist to data, but you can’t make him think.
Good luck with yet another article that “gets the word out”.
Reply
Ed Nalton
| #
Yes Gary,I have done the same,but with my garden shed roof iced over,and the sun climbing reluctantly over my neighbours roof. No clouds,and air temp -8 degC.There is a very sharp dividing line twixt ice area ,and sun illuminated area.Agood demo of real power,and apparent power..
Reply
Anglia
| #
I now no longer ever found out like it’s far even plausible but one (wdr99) in every of my confidant pal made $27,000 most effective inside 4 weeks simply finishing this smooth possibility and additionally she has prompted me to avail. up to date information on touring following website….
Reply