Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.
“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”
“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. “So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”
“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” he added.
Lindzen is referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.
Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position 
on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.
A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” wrote Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”
Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians used the figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited the Cook paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations.
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” Obama said in 2013, announcing his new global warming plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”
Lindzen disagreed with politicians who cite Cook’s paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it’s part of a political machine that’s used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.
“If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?” Lindzen said.
“If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works,” he said.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
Thank you Dr. Lindzen. AGW is nothing more than a junk science scam by liberals to increase taxes and energy costs to support “green energy” projects that lose money.
You are grossly misinformed. Please educate yourself: http://climate.nasa.gov/
Stop repeating propaganda and explain how the mechanism of CO2 can have such a gigantic effect. So far neither you nor Dano have done this.
Educate yourself is a just crude leftie insult better confined to your playground. Gravity also has a small effect on heat retention, would you like this taxed to aid your cause?
Still haven’t done your homework have you. It’s indeed been explained to you many times. I can’t help you.
you’re the idiot beyond help… here’s a tip.
the Earth has been going from ICE AGES to TROPICAL climates and back again for BILLIONS of years. to assume that humans can now have an impact where they will alter or be able to CONTROL this natural, billions of year old cycle.. is beyond insanity…and you are beyond indoctrinated. as this top MIT CLIMATE SCIENTIST has pointed out 😉
“The Earth has been going from ICE AGES to TROPICAL climates and back again for BILLIONS of years”.
This statement is misleading because you are completely ignoring the rate of change. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 400ppm – that’s more than a 25% increase since 1960. Its a level that hasn’t been experienced on the planet for half a million years or more. Even Lindzen (one scientist with controversial views) can’t argue that.
The mechanism and science behind human-induced climate change is well understood and accepted by virtually every major American and international scientific academy. It’s just not plausible that they are all insane and indoctrinated. More likely, it is you who has been indoctrinated with misinformation and pseudo science.
It’s increased by more than 25% since 1960 but, 96% of that is from natural sources and only 4% by burning fossil fuels. Explain why man’s 4% is causing this so called global warming? Now if we stopped burning all fossil fuels and we prevent 4% of CO2 from entering the atmosphere what would the world look like a year from now? Better or worse? How will you heat your home? How will you prepare your food? On the off chance you have family more then a 100 miles from where you live how will you travel to see them? How will you communicate with them? If not burning fossil fuels I would have to believe you would resort to other carbon emitting fuels such as wood or whale oil. Maybe you think windmills are the answer or unicorn farts what ever your supposed solution is it won’t amount to any change in the current rate of CO2 rise or alter the course of the temperature of the planet. I don’t know what your crusade is, to stop CO2 rise, which is impossible, to stop climate change, which is impossible, to change the temperature of the planet which is impossible, or to change minds of people who devote their time educating themselves on the subject of global warming again impossible. The mechanism and science behind human-induced climate change is not well understood nor accepted. Many scientist will admit that we are still in the very early stages of the science and still would take many decades of analysis before we can even think about reaching a conclusion on whether or not this climate change is human induced. Every bit of science behind the belief that this is man-made are models, models that so far have been significantly off from reality. Tell me how can you make such a conclusion that current weather patterns are in fact even partially to blame on man? What climate change are you witnessing at such astonishing rates that conclude to you that man is the primary contributor to it’s change?
Those educated in the sciences understand right away what you fail to grasp: only 4% by burning fossil fuels. Explain why man’s 4% is causing this so called global warming?
Cuz it is disrupting the carbon cycle. That 4% is what is increasing the total ppmv of CO2 each year by 1-3, and what has caused the extra 120 ppmv in the atmosphere, a level not seen in 3M years.
Can you grasp this simple concept? Sure you can! :o)
Best,
D
That part is correct, actually. The 4% meme is invalid. The other 96% cycles back and forth between atmospheric sinks and ocean/soil/biomass sink.
And the first 100 ppm, small though it is, has a radical effect. So it’s not the small amounts at issue.
But that is not the whole story.
Darn it, Evan, Dano made this comment like 2 weeks ago….please pick a current thread…..is that too hard for your data set!? LOL
” rate ”
Absolutly spot on mate.
Li D
Australia.
I doubt you could help an old lady across the road chum. Your explanations are usually serious disinformation.
Here’s the Kid’s Britannica video again for you. What is it that you don’t understand?
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-149342/The-greenhouse-effect-is-a-natural-phenomenon-through-which-Earth?&articleTypeId=31
neither you nor Dano have done this.
You are wrong, again. I detect a pattern….
Best,
D
I think I just coined a new term: “Disinformation Enthusiast”.
What think ye?
I think you’ve hit on something!
Best,
D
Better take a closer look at their information, I think.
I think the first time I used the term “Disinformation Enthusiast” was to describe Pierre Gosselin notrickszone website. Yes I have looked closely at his ‘information’…he promotes a lot of rubbish like Vahrenholt and Luning’ silly book that is now being peddled by the misinformers at HI.
I’d be less concerned with coining disparaging labels and more concerned with dispassionate assessment. It provides one with more flexibility and introspection. There is far too much name-calling in all this already. All that does is stifle communications and ossifies the mind. (And I am talking about both sides, here.)
Really, well gravity most certainly bends radiation so why would it not slow the escape of re-radiated heat just a little? Possibly around the same as your absortion re radiation explanation, and so little it matters not one jot. We can not significantly change the action of 400 parts per million of C02 either when our puny addition is so little.
Now please explain how you think CO2 makes a difference, also how you can reverse a cause and its effect.
Yup. A pattern.
Best,
D
now that is interesting… I had not heard about gravity having an affect on heat retention and I’ll bet most haven’t
Last time I breathed in 02 and exhaled C02 the plants in the house breath in the c02 and exhale 02. Jehovah God designed things to be in balance within nature. How arrogant and misinformed we are as created beings to think we can change anything God designed in the first place.
Tom Steyer spent nearly $75 million to finance Global Warming Propaganda and that’s the best you can come up with? You are grossly over paid!
My point is the laws of physics don’t really care how much Tom spent. It doesn’t change the facts: CO2 has increased by over 25% since 1960 alone and is now 400ppmv – a level not seen in over half a million years. The increase is directly attributable to human activity including the burning of fossil fuels. Rising CO2 and other GHGs contribute to the greenhouse effect and are causing unprecedented changes to the earth’s climate system. You can ignore the science but you can’t change physics.
Why, yes. And one can fully accept all that (and more) and still be a skeptic. A strong one.
I am a skeptic who completely accepts the 97% stuff. Ever read those questions? Either the Cook or Oreskes study. I answer Yes to all those questions. I think you need to know exactly what those survey questions are. And what they are not.
And that, of course is Lindzen’s point.
You guys need to know your battlefield.
Maybe Dano had left for a vacation and won’t be back in 2 weeks.
Hows that moon landing hoax bud?
Nother junk science scam by them
liberals at NASA?
Fucking conspiracy loons desperate
to validate their exorbitant lifestyles.
V8 mate! Vroooooom!
Stupid muppets with
OUTDOOR heaters.
Lindzen is misleading his flock. At least, now, rubes no longer spell it concencus, like they did when the talking point first came out.
Best,
D
Concencus??? Really? So how do the the rubes spell it now?
Srsly. It was an indicator of a hapless rube, like the “31,000 scientist” or “Algore (isfat!) bought a house on beach!!!!11” or “Hockey stick refudiated” is today.
Best,
D
Think of how much electricity & CO2 you’d save if you didn’t type
Best,
D
at the end of all your posts. Less clutter too.
But we should take our hats off to the original perpetrator of the scam. He chose undefined, unmeasurable parameters to demonstrate undefined observable physical phenomena that required iterative computer models on ever increasing size computers. He certainly started an inordinate number of mediocre scientists across the world on what will eventually be shown as short career paths.
Then he passed over before he could be exposed.
It was not ICCC’s Patchauri either. His career path has also been truncated in his homeland.
41 papers is very few indeed. It would be good to know who are the authors of those papers and who are the peer reviewers. It certainly appears that sleight of hand in including papers with “could” and “may” (inconclusive ) in the “conclusive” category has been used to “validate” the pre-ordained conclusion. This is not science, it is propaganda.
So, Mr Cook is so passionate about his own pre-conceived idea that he feels fit to deliberately exaggerate, but how about those that pounce on the “conclusions” for political reasons? We must examine their reasons for exploiting the fraud. It all starts to smell pretty bad. The fraud is enormous. The stakes of believing the blatant fraud are nothing less than the actual destruction of our civilization, and perhaps our own species. For the alarmists out there-wake up-you have been deceived big time.
Not fraud. Just error.
I have been deep into analyzing the adjustments. I find no fraud. I do find much (egregious) error, but error is not fraud.
You be just a big dummie
An error that is not corrected by amendment or redaction is fraud. Allowing “knowledge” to continue to go out that has been demonstrated to be in error is clearly wrong.
Calling it “error” is just covering things up. This is willful deception.
It’s only fraud if they know it’s an error. They don’t appear to.
Just putting hands over one’s ears and eyes and simply refusing to listen and read evidence that debunks your pet theory is NOT an excuse. It is bigotry in the extreme. Remember, the definition of a bigot is someone who refuses to listen to the argument of another party. The left is very good at this.
Some will, some will not. For example Dr. Venema, with whom I stridently disagree on the subject of siting, has been both courteous and responsive. His insights are very valuable to me.
I need the Other Side. Without it, I am driving blind.
There is, after all, no man without confirmation bias, myself definitely included. In order to break that, I try to address the positions of those with whom I disagree. I often alter my positions based on these interactions. Yet there it is. A devil sitting on one shoulder whispering in my ear as to when and where to look — or stop looking. Combating one’s biases is an ongoing, neverending process.
But bias is not fraud, certainly not in a legal sense.
If it is error, it must be corrected ASAP. If it is not corrected promptly, it is fraud, since the misinformation is allowed to spread.
Enough excuses-it is fraud.
These things take time.
We are upsetting their applecart. They will need to be convinced on at least two points. The only practical way to do that is publish and explicate. And we have to be as careful as we can.
These things take time.