‘Propaganda’: Top MIT climate scientist trashes ‘97% consensus’ claim

By |2016-02-17T08:40:12+00:00February 17th, 2016|Climate|119 Comments

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 Daily Caller  New FoundationMassachusetts 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 John Cookon [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


  1. FortSteve February 17, 2016 at 11:27 AM

    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.

    • Ian5 February 18, 2016 at 12:21 AM

      You are grossly misinformed. Please educate yourself: http://climate.nasa.gov/

      • Brin Jenkins February 18, 2016 at 5:07 AM

        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?

        • Ian5 February 18, 2016 at 8:30 AM

          Still haven’t done your homework have you. It’s indeed been explained to you many times. I can’t help you.

          • Chris Sky February 18, 2016 at 4:48 PM

            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 😉

            • Ian5 February 18, 2016 at 9:37 PM

              “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.

              • realist244 February 19, 2016 at 10:08 PM

                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?

                • Dano2 February 20, 2016 at 4:03 PM

                  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)



                  • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 6:50 PM

                    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.

                    • Evan Jones II March 4, 2016 at 8:31 PM

                      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

              • Li D February 20, 2016 at 1:53 AM

                ” rate ”
                Absolutly spot on mate.
                Li D

          • Brin Jenkins February 24, 2016 at 2:31 PM

            I doubt you could help an old lady across the road chum. Your explanations are usually serious disinformation.

        • Ian5 February 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM

          Here’s the Kid’s Britannica video again for you. What is it that you don’t understand?

        • Dano2 February 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM

          neither you nor Dano have done this.

          You are wrong, again. I detect a pattern….



          • Ian5 February 19, 2016 at 11:21 PM

            I think I just coined a new term: “Disinformation Enthusiast”.
            What think ye?

            • Dano2 February 19, 2016 at 11:56 PM

              I think you’ve hit on something!



            • Evan Jones March 7, 2016 at 6:23 PM

              Better take a closer look at their information, I think.

              • Ian5 March 9, 2016 at 9:11 PM

                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.

                • Evan Jones March 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM

                  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.)

          • Brin Jenkins February 24, 2016 at 2:29 PM

            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.

            • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 3:16 PM

              Yup. A pattern.



        • mva1985 February 22, 2016 at 8:29 PM

          now that is interesting… I had not heard about gravity having an affect on heat retention and I’ll bet most haven’t

        • eagle keeper March 16, 2016 at 8:36 AM

          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.

      • Tomko Kubianca February 20, 2016 at 1:02 AM

        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!

        • Ian5 February 20, 2016 at 1:22 AM

          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.

          • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM

            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.

            • Evan Jones II March 4, 2016 at 8:32 PM

              Maybe Dano had left for a vacation and won’t be back in 2 weeks.

    • Li D February 20, 2016 at 2:08 AM

      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.

  2. Dano2 February 17, 2016 at 11:39 AM

    Lindzen is misleading his flock. At least, now, rubes no longer spell it concencus, like they did when the talking point first came out.



    • mutantgeezer February 17, 2016 at 6:34 PM

      Concencus??? Really? So how do the the rubes spell it now?

      • Dano2 February 17, 2016 at 6:43 PM

        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.



    • Paul Clark February 17, 2016 at 10:46 PM

      Think of how much electricity & CO2 you’d save if you didn’t type



      at the end of all your posts. Less clutter too.

  3. Grumpyoldman2 February 17, 2016 at 7:09 PM

    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.

  4. high treason February 18, 2016 at 2:10 AM

    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.

    • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:10 PM

      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.

      • Evan Jones II March 4, 2016 at 8:48 PM

        You be just a big dummie

      • high treason March 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM

        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.

        • Evan Jones March 10, 2016 at 6:27 AM

          It’s only fraud if they know it’s an error. They don’t appear to.

          • high treason March 12, 2016 at 5:31 AM

            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.

            • Evan Jones March 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM

              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.

      • high treason March 7, 2016 at 7:08 AM

        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.

        • Evan Jones March 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM

          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.

          • Types Missives May 8, 2017 at 11:28 PM

            I wonder if correcting errors will fall under Al Gore’s planned Denier Laws?

            • Evan Jones May 10, 2017 at 8:16 PM

              No doubt. (Yet we endeavor to persevere.)

              • Evan Jones II May 11, 2017 at 8:58 AM

                The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.
                James Powell
                No doubt is the above!

  5. Copper February 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I give the AGW religion one more year before it is gone for good. It has received a whole lot of attention lately and a whole lot of people are exposing it for the scam it is.


    • Ian5 February 19, 2016 at 1:24 AM

      Religions wax and wane but you can’t ignore science and data. The evidence for human-caused climate change is unequivocal. Nope, not going away. Get used to it!

    • Dano2 February 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM

      Disinformation site! Drink!



      • Jason February 23, 2016 at 5:32 AM

        How convenient to be able to just write “Disinformation Site” and dismiss everything contained therein with the wave of your hand. I mean if that’s not scientific, I don’t know what is.

        • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 9:24 AM

          It is, in fact, a disinformation site.



          • Jason February 25, 2016 at 3:38 PM

            Well, thank fvck we have awesome people like you to inform all of us regular idiots what is, and what is not worth considering. Thanks Dano2!

            • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM

              Glad I could identify a disinformation site for you. Any time.



              • Jason February 25, 2016 at 4:23 PM


  6. Grumpyoldman2 February 18, 2016 at 11:15 PM

    For those who may be wondering, the original perpetrator of the scam was one Maurice Strong. His evil marketing genius allowed the original proposals to gain traction among gullible politicians, even more gullible Greenies, extremely gullible economists, willing believers, half-trained “scientists”, eager statisticians and weather forecasters. Strong’s coterie of disciples and sycophant followers guaranteed success in overcoming opposition. The choice of unmeasurable, undefinable global physical conditions was nothing short of brilliant. It caught the world of science by stealth largely because of the wide range of sciences needed to look inside his postulates.

    As with the most successful conmen in history Strong’s assertions are being denounced but not before governments have wasted billions (trillions?) of taxpayers dollars.

    The final irony is that Strong died before his scam could be exposed. He can’t be prosecuted under much vaunted International Law now. I wonder how history will end up recording this sorry affair?

    • Ian5 February 18, 2016 at 11:35 PM

      What has Maurice Strong and his “assertions” got to do with 400ppm – the concentration of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. An elevated level directly attributable to human activity including the burning of fossil fuels? Absolutely nothing.

      • Grumpyoldman2 February 19, 2016 at 1:35 AM

        You are absolutely almost correct. It was not Strong who invented the CO2-caused global warming concept.

        The 400ppm CO2 you mention demonstrates the brilliance of the scam. Disciples of the pseudo religion launched by Strong introduced this theory in the belief that increases in CO2 somehow could cause unquantifiable (to date) global warming, ocean “acidification” and its imaginary likely effects, and of course the Greenhouse effect. All the while these devotees really hoped a thinly disguised irrational dislike for low cost power and the use of coal and various hydrocarbons would slip by unnoticed. [email protected] had to be demonised. There is as yet no scientific proof that (a) CO2 is deleterious to the performance of our atmosphere or oceans, nor (b) that the slow change observed in atmospheric CO2 level is anthropogenic. Plenty of info out there that shows otherwise.

        • Ian5 February 19, 2016 at 2:11 AM

          Well let’s start with ridiculous assertion (b) “that there is as yet no scientific proof that the slow change in atmospheric CO2 level is anthropogenic”

          Observed data shows that there has been over 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years alone – to levels not experienced in at least 650,000 years. If it is not anthropogenic, what is your “scientific” explanation for the unprecedented increase?

          • Grumpyoldman2 February 19, 2016 at 8:03 PM

            Most of us do not disagree there has been a recent increase in atmospheric CO2 level to levels not found for 650000 years but there is a sizable body of geological thought that does not jump to the assumption that increase must be anthropogenic because the industrial revolution was now in play. The 3 million or so years prior to the 650000 years you cite were free of industrial revolution yet CO2 levels fluctuated to even greater extent than that being observed recently.

            There is a large body of thought that CO2 levels are largely driven by geological factors and prevailing flora over time.

            This exchange is detracting some of us from the fraudulent consensus claims analysed elsewhere in this article.

            • Ian5 February 19, 2016 at 9:51 PM

              “There is a large body of thought that CO2 levels are largely driven by geological factors and prevailing flora over time”.

              Over 400 ppm now…a 100 ppm increase (over 30%) in less than 100 years doesn’t sound like a geologic time scale to me. Where exactly is this ‘large body of thought’? More likely it is a figment of your imagination.

              • Grumpyoldman2 February 20, 2016 at 11:33 PM

                I have only tried to outline part of it for you. I can’t understand it for you. Proven science trumps fervent belief. I am not imagining it. If you haven’t discovered the geologists’ take on 13.5 Billion year’s Earthly development, I doubt you would follow up if told where to look but start with: John Abbott, Dr Robert M Carter (dec), Dr Christopher Essex, Stewart W Franks, Kesten Green, Dr R S Lindzen (ibid), Jenifer Marohasy, Patrick J Michaels, Prof Garth W Paltridge, Prof Ian Plimer, Dr Willie Soon, to name but a few.

                • Dano2 February 21, 2016 at 12:16 PM

                  A rogue’s gallery of disinformers and denialists, not “proven (sic) science”.

                  I LOLzed!



                  • Grumpyoldman2 February 21, 2016 at 5:16 PM

                    Proven science will also trump politics. No one interested in scientific truth should be afraid to look at the other side. I suppose that is behind the Royal Society motto, nullis in verbia. Mine is look before you leap.

                    • Dano2 February 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM

                      They haven’t done anything. There is no denialist science. There is only almost two centuries of scientific evidence that denialists cannot refute.



                    • Brin Jenkins February 25, 2016 at 6:52 AM

                      Whats a denials? What is being denied? You deny logic time and time again.

                    • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:03 PM

                      He thinks (incorrectly) that lukewarmers are deniers.

                      He is falling into the same trap that Dr. Lindzen outlines. Even Cook admitted to Morano that his survey is being misused.

                    • Ian5 February 21, 2016 at 7:56 PM

                      Just l”ooking” isn’t the same as critical thinking. Examine the source. Virtually all of the above “body of thought” are Heartland Institute affiliates, an organization who’s sole purpose is to mislead and misinform.

                    • Brin Jenkins February 24, 2016 at 2:49 PM

                      Is the a clue perhaps? I understand Critical Thinking is taught instead of logic now.

                    • Ian5 February 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM

                      References linked to Heartland Institute are “logically” unreliable.

              • Brin Jenkins February 24, 2016 at 2:41 PM

                AS C02 is released by heat please explain how it can also be a cause of heat? Cause and effect reversed without any explanation?

                The next problem is convincing folk that the C02 molecule absorbing and re emitting infra red in the short distance of the atmosphere is causing a significant increase. Density of air rapidly decreases and there are only 400 parts per million of which mans bit is tiny? Every thing has an effect, but show its enough to matter.

                If you can’t explain, then you don’t understand it yourself.

                • Ian5 February 25, 2016 at 1:53 AM

                  Man’s contribution has resulted in a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 50 years alone. How can you logically conclude that “man’s bit is tiny”?

                  • Brin Jenkins February 25, 2016 at 6:54 AM

                    Was it man, or Oceans warming and causing the release? You are so quick to jump to conclusion on faulty logic.

                    • Ian5 February 26, 2016 at 12:31 AM

                      You tell me then and substantiate it with something other than your imagination. Why is atmospheric CO2 at 400ppmv – a level that hasn’t been experienced by the planet in over 700,000 years?

                    • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM

                      Only 100ppm outgasses from the oceans after a glacial (>10C warming). That is not much. Man has added ~120ppm since 1880.

                    • Evan Jones II March 4, 2016 at 8:50 PM

                      And 10 ppm in a thousand year period is the norm from the Earths past records…looks like Evvie ain’t paying attention at will…ain’t learning neither…you get a F

                  • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:05 PM

                    Man’s bit is not tiny. ~40% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. But there is the issue of masking and diminishing returns. And feedbacks.

                    • Dano2 March 4, 2016 at 7:06 PM

                      Diminishing returns will not happen for a long time. And positive feedbacks are already happening – Arctic & Greenland.



                    • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:12 PM

                      Diminishing returns are part and parcel. The near-universally accepted raw CO2 forcing is ~+1.1C per doubling. That is, in and of itself, a severe diminishing return.

                      We may double CO2 (though it is unlikely, given technological progress). But we will never, ever redouble.

                    • Dano2 March 4, 2016 at 7:19 PM

                      ECS is the value you want, which is currently around 3C for 2x CO2. I agree we won’t double twice.



                    • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:22 PM

                      Indeed. And 3C is the IPCC number. 2C is the more recent Otto et al. number (that team is composed entirely of IPCC lead authors). Curry/Lewis has it at 1.5C.

                      The size of the gap between TCR and ECS is a raging controversy. 95% of peer-reviewed papers since 2011 say the IPCC got ECS too high.

                    • Ali_Bertarian March 4, 2016 at 7:34 PM

                      One doctor says to take 3 ml of medicine.
                      Another doctor says to take 2 ml of medicine.
                      Another doctor says to take 1.5 ml of medicine.
                      Another doctor says to take 1.1 ml of medicine.

                      Why believe any of them?

                      What is the MOE on CO2? MOE requires assumption of a normal distribution, as I recall from my stats class. Any evidence for such an assumption?

                    • Ian5 March 5, 2016 at 12:03 AM

                      Including the ‘issue’ of positive feedbacks.

                    • Ian5 March 5, 2016 at 1:54 AM

                      And the ‘issue’ of positive feedbacks.

            • Dano2 February 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM

              Good comedy: there is a sizable body of geological thought that does not jump to the assumption that increase must be anthropogenic

              I LOLzed!



          • ninetyninepct March 8, 2016 at 8:15 PM

            Ian – What proof is there that this 400 number is bad for life? It is normal practice and standard procedure for greenhouses and grow ops to add a tremendous amount of CO2 to increase the health and production of their crops. WW2 submariners occasionally reached 4000 with no lasting ill effects. Groggy and thick, of course, but few deaths or brain damage. Mostly huge headaches from lack of oxygen.

            • Ian5 March 9, 2016 at 12:05 AM

              Think about it a little more. The planet isn’t a greenhouse or a submarine.

        • Dano2 February 19, 2016 at 9:58 AM


          Good comedy! I LOLzed!



        • Li D February 20, 2016 at 2:02 AM

          Oh my golly gosh.
          What pray tell is the
          mechanism currently increasing CO2?
          Cant believe someone has
          balls to even suggest theres
          no scientific proof of human
          produced CO2 increasing the
          total CO2 content.
          Its a straightforward analysis
          of ratios.
          Li D

    • Ian5 February 18, 2016 at 11:41 PM

      “He can’t be prosecuted under much vaunted International Law now.”

      What exactly would he be prosecuted for and under what ‘International Law’?

      • Grumpyoldman2 February 19, 2016 at 1:08 AM

        I’d start with Fraud.

        • Ian5 February 19, 2016 at 1:18 AM

          Fraud in the legal context is generally defined as “the intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by a person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, a upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.”

          I don’t think you have much of a case there. The Heartland Institute and/or its affiliates – some of whom have been closely involved in cigarette industry deception campaigns – would be a much better target.

          • Grumpyoldman2 February 19, 2016 at 7:04 AM

            Thank you for pointing that out. I wonder what his motivation could have been. There are very few who would not agree that the climate has changed, however that change may be perceived, and will continue to do so.

            • Types Missives May 8, 2017 at 11:15 PM

              His motivation was clear, and the same as the current agenda of the Globalist. One World Governmental control over every country that could represent a threat to their power. The other aspect of their agenda is to destabilize European nations, the US and commonwealth nations, hence mass immigration. They’ll destroy modern civilization if they have to. It’s been their goal for over a century, since the formation of communism in Russia.

  7. Safesam February 21, 2016 at 5:29 PM

    CO2 is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, the same level as it was 40 years ago when I was at school!
    We are in an ice age at the moment and one day the earth will heat up and the ice caps will melt as they are meant to do.
    Lets just hope we don’t go inot a glaciation first. Then we would really be in trouble
    For scientists who do know how climate works watch Dr Swensmark’s documentary. Its all about the solar system.

    • Dano2 February 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM

      Irrelevant, irrelevant. false, irrelevant, irrelevant.



      • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 6:59 PM

        Relevant, relevant, true, relevant, relevant.

        Says this 97%-er.

        • Dano2 March 4, 2016 at 7:05 PM

          False, false, false, false, false.




          • Evan Jones March 4, 2016 at 7:16 PM

            Correlation and causation are arguably true (or not). True.

            Cloud effects (and deltas) are a big question mark. True.

            Blind ridicule is ubiquitous (from both sides). True.

            Science is about debate and investigation not politicly driven consensus. True.

            • Dano2 March 4, 2016 at 7:19 PM

              Also true: the OP was duped.



            • Evan Jones II March 4, 2016 at 8:54 PM

              Tell that to lindzen
              Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.” (“The Heat is On: The warming of the world’s climate sparks a blaze of denial,” Harper’s magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

        • Evan Jones II March 4, 2016 at 8:34 PM

          You deniers still battling that? As the Arctic ice rapidly retreats and disappears

    • Ian5 February 21, 2016 at 7:47 PM

      Junk when it came out in 2007. Still junk.

    • Brin Jenkins February 24, 2016 at 4:14 PM

      Thanks for this, corrillation is strong and causation is arguable. Certainly as a cloud obscures the Sun temperatures just plummet showing the powerful effect of cloud cover on the planet.

      What is interesting is the blind ridicule of believers when their faith is questioned. Science is about debate and investigation not politicly driven consensus.

  8. lol February 22, 2016 at 7:14 PM

    have an easy way to settle the climate change debate. You see… the
    ozone layer traps a significant portion of greenhouse gases and this in
    turn has a malignant effect on living beings. If you do not believe
    this, then recreate the experiment for yourself. Park your car in your
    garage (a closed environment which traps greenhouse gases), turn the
    key… then sit back and observe the effects… for the advancement of
    science, of course.

    • Brin Jenkins February 24, 2016 at 2:44 PM


    • Brin Jenkins February 25, 2016 at 6:55 AM

      How did you think you fared?

  9. Justin February 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM

    Richard Lindzen also said the link between smoking and lung cancer is weak. And at one point he was being paid $2,500 a day to consult for oil and gas interests. I think they got a good return on their investment.

  10. dogbert May 14, 2016 at 11:09 PM

    Global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate catchphrase of the day, is a hoax. Leading climate wizards recently have begun admitting that the whole scam is about global redistribution of wealth. If the wizards are admitting it, you’d think the global zombie minions would at least acknowledge it. In the latest 180 degree reversal of climate wizardry wrong prediction, Great Lakes states are dealing with rising water levels that, a few years ago, were supposed be historically and eternally LOW because of global cooling/warming/change/who knows what? Oops; wrong, again.

  11. Rinat Sergeev August 26, 2016 at 3:55 PM

    The idea that all the damage we made to the Earth can be negated by… signing a controvercial CO2 emission pact, is very questionable.
    It cannot be just a single intervention. It has to be many healing interventions integrated into the system and culture. And the way how it is structured now, it leads nowhere.

  12. Stephen Powell March 21, 2017 at 11:35 PM

    I think it is important to make an official list of climate skeptics. When climate catastrophes force the masses to take notice they will need that list to track those responsible for inaction to vent their fury on!
    The ignorance, stupidity and craven quest for profit from fossil fuel at the expense of the only planet we have has gone to depths lower than my lowest assessment of humanity!
    Doing this whilst posting anonymously is the way of cowards! Unfortunately for you, the science that you choose to denigrate will have no trouble rooting you out.

    • Evan Jones May 10, 2017 at 8:21 PM

      Fear not. You guys already have us guys on numerous lists.

      (You-all should have spent that time checking your data and metadata. It’s not like we didn’t tell you to.)

      Oh, and by the way, have you ever actually done a basic holistic demographic assessment of the effect of fossil fuels?

  13. Stephen Powell March 21, 2017 at 11:49 PM

    Lindzen has all the credibility money can buy!
    ‘Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.” (“The Heat is On: The warming of the world’s climate sparks a blaze of denial,” Harper’s magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.’

  14. John Macdonell April 29, 2017 at 3:21 AM


    Consensus real.
    Has become political issue.
    Lindzen isn’t doing you any favours.

Comments are closed.