We Must 'Wake Up' to the 'Motivating Narrative' on Climate Change Says Top Scientist
'Ridiculous' Attempts to Demonise “Fertiliser” Carbon Dioxide
A professor at MIT has called out IPCC scientists, and exposed what he describes as the 'ridiculous attempt to demonise Co2', the very element needed for life on planet earth.
In a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Professor Richard Lindzen warns that, unless we wake up to the absurdity of the motivating narrative, “this is only likely to be the beginning of the disasters that will follow from the current irrational demonisation of CO2”. These disasters, of course, include the “hobbling” of Western energy systems, and the reason why millions across Europe face huge bills, rolling blackouts and heat-or-eat decisions this winter.
Lindzen has been a long time critic of the political global warming narrative. In his GWPF paper, he notes the 1961 words of the late U.S. President Eisenhower:
'The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.'
Lindzen has long warned about the dangers of politicised science, noting recently that the UN-backed IPCC is “government-controlled and only issues government-dictated findings”.
Along with fellow atmospheric scientist Professor William Happer of Princeton, he told a recent U.S. Government inquiry that current climate science literature was “a joke”. It was “pal review, not peer review”, they added. Of course, the links between climate science and grant-providing politicians are well known. In 2013, the then-head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, told the Guardian: “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”
Lindzen maintains it is “absurd” to assume that the controlling factor for temperature changes in the complex three-dimensional climate is the small contribution of CO2. He notes the evidence from the Antarctica Vostok ice core that showed cooling preceded decreases in CO2 during the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years. For the paleoclimatic record going back 600 million years, “there is no suggestion of any correlation with carbon dioxide at all”, he added.
Carbon dioxide is noted to be a “particularly ridiculous” choice as a pollutant. Its primary role is as a fertiliser for plants and currently, he adds, “almost all plants are starved of CO2”. Moreover, if we were to remove a bit more than 60% of CO2, the consequences would be dire, “namely death by starvation for all animal life”.
Video: Senator Destroys Climate Change Con in Three Minutes
"There is a fundamental problem with climate change alarmism. In the two recessions of the last two decades where carbon emissions were hugely reduced, there was no difference to the CO2 in the air and temperature of the world."