Lindzen responds to the MIT letter objecting to his petition to Trump to withdraw from the UNFCC.

Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.

March 9, 2017

President Donald Trump

The White House

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.  With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.

Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

We note that:

  • The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
  • It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.   Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
  • Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
  • The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
  • Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
  • Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.

I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petion (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

Respectfully yours,


Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences


Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:

ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).

ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).

BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.

BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.

CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.

DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.

EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.

FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).

HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.

HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.

IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist.

LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.

MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).

MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).

MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).

NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.

SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.

SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.

SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.

STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).

WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.

ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University);, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.

Original letter here: Lindzen Personal PAOC Explanation-final

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 9, 2017 9:16 am

Good short response on climate change advocacy.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 9, 2017 11:30 am

Interesting viewpoint from Scott Adams as to the inability of AGW types to effectively communicate their message:

Reply to  BFL
March 9, 2017 11:41 am

Scott Adams is a very sharp guy. A must-read!

Reply to  BFL
March 9, 2017 11:43 am

“And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that? If you can’t tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?”

Reply to  BFL
March 9, 2017 12:40 pm

It’s because they’ve never been able to communicate their message that they’re reduced to soundbites, bullying, character assassination, and moral blackmail. Their problem is : that only works when you have the moral high ground, which they don’t. They can’t explain their message because when the full complexity of climate is explained people are likely to ask – wow – so complex – how can you be sure it’s all down to one thing? So they reduced everything to soundbites: 97% say …, GHG causes atmospheric warming, X is a denier, IPCC says, …

They thought they had the moral high ground and some are still puzzled when I tell them CO2 is not a pollutant but is, in fact, a boon to life on earth.

Reply to  BFL
March 9, 2017 2:21 pm

Thanks, BFL, I liked this bit…

What’s up with that?

Reply to  BFL
March 9, 2017 8:03 pm

Scott wrote

And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones?

GCMs dont measure temperature, at best they’re proxies for temperature and so if they’re chosen because there is a belief they will represent future temperature then they have to stay.

You cant exclude their results for the same reason you cant choose the tree rings that best represent the known part of the temperature record because that has been shown to produce a hockey stick. The alarmists are damned if they do and damned if they dont in this regard…

Having said that the GCMs are already fitted to the warming in such a way as to give too high sensitivity…so excluding the “bad ones” would be an obvious move to improve their “capability” hiding the fact they have no predictive capability anyway…

Reply to  BFL
March 10, 2017 12:13 am

They can only meet it with attack on person.

Dr. Dave
Reply to  BFL
March 10, 2017 8:34 am

Interesting that he says he’s a believer… sure didn’t sound like it.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 9, 2017 11:37 am

Better than the original petition. Very good.

March 9, 2017 9:23 am

Yes, let’s stay on the offense side of the discussion.

The Alarmists have no data to support their claims, and we have Richard Feynman (among many) and the Scientific Method on ours.

More CO2 is better for plants and thus animals; warmer is better for mankind (especially the poor). Reliable, available, and cheap energy is best for all

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 9, 2017 9:35 am

BINGO! This is Common Sense 101, and for the life of me I have never understood how someone possessing high IQs would be so low in wisdom, i.e. common sense. This is so elementary that even a grade schooler can grasp it.

Janice Moore
Reply to  jlk103144
March 9, 2017 2:54 pm

Yes. Geology Jim (and jlk) indeed.

The best defense is — a good offense.

Reply to  jlk103144
March 10, 2017 10:20 am

As soon as addiction comes into play, IQ goes out the window. Warmunists (and a few of us) are addicted to adrenaline, similar to rage-a-holics. Reading WUWT turns Warmunists into spittle-spewing, eye-rolling maniacs in seconds. Then they post here.

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 9, 2017 9:40 am

Despite overwhelming evidence that CO2 is good for plants it looks like they are trying to get around that one
Rising CO2 due to climate change may not improve agriculture, model shows
Although many people have argued that rising carbon dioxide levels would benefit crop production, a recent model of the effects of increased CO2 shows that it’s not that simple and that elevated levels could have a much less positive effect on plant photosynthesis than previously predicted.

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 9:54 am

What is it with the belief amongst these alarmists that models trump real world data?

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 10:01 am

Wow. Need to alert greenhouse operators. They mustn’t believe the productivity they are seeing when some university has created a model that refutes that productivity. Perhaps they should reduce or even scrub CO2 from their greenhouses to promote optimal growth. Yeah, that ought to work.

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 10:09 am

“less positive” IS STILL POSITIVE

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 10:48 am

… elevated levels could have a much less positive effect on plant photosynthesis than previously predicted.

Predicted! The effects of CO2 on plant growth has been documented in many experiments. Sometimes I think these people think that computer models trump reality.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 10:56 am

Thanks for that point EricHA. Indeed alarmist researchers are well-funded to undermine the conventional and fact-based wisdom that plants love CO2. Your link goes to a Purdue study that uses models to forecast impacts on agricultural production, while assuming that farmers will not adapt their methods and seed choices as they have always done.

Not long ago a Stanford study attempted to prove plants do not always benefit from rising CO2, by using flawed logic that blames CO2 for the presence of other limiting factors.

Joel Snider
Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 12:34 pm

EricHa: If you look, there are always shell games surrounding the headlines of these stories/studies. For example, a study – I think it was released in 2015, but I don’t have it in front of me, so I’m just calling out from memory (but I’m sure other posters remember it) – but it made an attempt to discredit CO2 as plant food by showing how some California-area plants didn’t do as well with increased CO2 – but you had to look deeper to find that these were plants that had adapted to arid, desert climates. In a more lush environment, they would have died out and been replaced by a preponderance of other plant life.

So, replacing a desert with a lusher environment threatens species specifically acclimated to a harsh, inhospitable, arid habitat. But that doesn’t make the land barren, does it? Quite the opposite.

Taylor Ponlman
Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 12:49 pm

The authors should be locked in a greenhouse with CO2 at 1100 ppm for a month, then see if they can report factually that “elevated levels could have a much less positive effect…”. What idiots.

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 3:45 pm

So now we’re to believe model’s on crop growth when every model on co2 and warming has proven false? Easily discredited by satellite pictures of greening all over the planet… We could use about 1000ppm to green us up even more…We evolved as a species at 4000ppm …Since were devolving in common sense many this could help.

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 3:45 pm

So now we’re to believe model’s on crop growth when every model on co2 and warming has proven false? Easily discredited by satellite pictures of greening all over the planet… We could use about 1000ppm to green us up even more…We evolved as a species at 4000ppm …Since were devolving in common sense many this could help.

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 5:51 pm

“You cannot look at just one effect in isolation, … and make a determination of how it will affect global crop production,”

Except CO2.

The warmists want to sheet home everything to their favourite bogeyman!!

Read more at:

Reply to  EricHa
March 9, 2017 7:46 pm
Reply to  EricHa
March 10, 2017 10:27 am

I have a model that says you should send me all your money or the Earth will turn into a great big, cajun-blackened, spherical pizza.

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 9, 2017 10:04 am

Don’t forget to stay on the offense when it comes to the purely political side of the AGW issue. No doubt somewhere out there in enviro-activistland, somebody is going to pipe up by saying Dr Lindzen charges fossil fuel companies $2500 per day for consulting. It is a two decade-old accusation where — as I explained here — the logic of it falls apart over him never apparently raising his fee after all that time. Go on the offense of where that worthless talking point accusation originated, and you put a core clique of enviro-activists in a world of hurt.

john harmsworth
Reply to  GeologyJim
March 9, 2017 10:42 am

Really would have been good to point out the unnecessary government expenditures that could be better spent. This seems to be a major thrust of the new administration.

Joel Snider
Reply to  john harmsworth
March 9, 2017 12:37 pm

John: Exactly. That is, in a nutshell, why this whole AGW scare has been such a waste. It is also in itself a motive.
And I agree – any good entrepreneur trims waste, and that’s what we’re getting in a guy like Trump.

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 9, 2017 12:57 pm

“they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth”
Again, it begs the question, who’s the “denier”?

Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2017 9:25 am

The Climate Liars at MIT hide behind the illogical Appeals to Authority and to “Consensus”. Big surprise.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2017 10:19 am

The MIT letter foolishly cites SLR when that has not accelerated, ocean acidification which ignores buffering and the biological pump, and more extreme droughts and floods, which even the IPCC SRES (2012) said there was no evidence for. They have truly drunk the coolaid.

Reply to  ristvan
March 10, 2017 10:32 am

Drunk the coolaid? They’ve gargled it to the tune of “The Farmer in the Dell.” Not only that, but…well, I’ll just stop here.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2017 10:30 am

Of course they do. Their jobs depend on it.

March 9, 2017 9:27 am

The best short summary of the state of climate “science” that I have seen to date.

Reply to  Bob Mount
March 13, 2017 5:32 pm

Two words about the Models

Spaghetti Plots

Every time there is a storm brewing the local TV Meteorologists provide all the evidence we need about the Hubris of the Models and “Settled Science”

March 9, 2017 9:29 am

Dr. Lindzen asked me to sign the original letter, and I did so. I was unaware of his follow-up to President Trump, with which I also agree.

john harmsworth
Reply to  fmims
March 9, 2017 10:44 am

Whoever you are, we thank you for your conscientious courage.

Dan Hawkins
Reply to  john harmsworth
March 9, 2017 12:20 pm

Not sure, but I surmise that “whoever you are” is Forrest Mims, author of a wonderful series of notebooks on electronics, and a man of many achievements.
If I am right, thank you Mr. Mims.


Reply to  john harmsworth
March 9, 2017 2:48 pm
Reply to  john harmsworth
March 9, 2017 2:49 pm

His website is linked under his username:

Reply to  john harmsworth
March 10, 2017 10:44 am

Mims has several interesting sites. Definitely measurement-oriented.

Danny V
March 9, 2017 9:30 am

Good on you Mr. Lindzen

March 9, 2017 9:32 am

I’m wondering just why MIT is so upset. Is it because they consider him a heretic, who should be either burned at the stake, or just jailed for being a contrarian? Or is it because of the government hand-outs in funds they would lose, were this scam halted? Or perhaps a combination of both?

Reply to  jlk103144
March 9, 2017 6:02 pm


michael hart
Reply to  jlk103144
March 9, 2017 6:06 pm

Whatever happens to the gross total amount of government funding, it is important to remain on good terms with those who disburse the individual grants. The process is manned (and Manned!) by global-warming zealots, so MIT researchers need to be seen to be singing from the ‘correct’ hymn sheet.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  jlk103144
March 9, 2017 6:38 pm

follow the money…

Reply to  jlk103144
March 13, 2017 5:44 pm

I suspect that the real reason is that the MIT faculty just like most faculty are:
a) still either living under the delusion that its all a bad dream and when they awake Hillery will be President or,
b) still deep into the denial phase at the potential loss of their sinecures from the Obama EPA

In either event — ultimately MIT is nothing if not pragmatic and utilitarian — they will eventually figure out a way to continue their gravy train

PS: full disclosure my undergraduate degree is Physics from MIT, and I know and respect Dick Lindzen and his unsullied character as a scientist — even if I do think that as a theorist he attaches too much credibility to the surface instrumental record

Allen Duffy
March 9, 2017 9:36 am

Nit picking but ….. should have spelt Lord Monkton’s name correctly. /synic on: This is bound to seized upon by the alarmist community as evidence of false/fraudulent science /synic:off

Reply to  Allen Duffy
March 9, 2017 2:52 pm

Nit picking but …..cynic.

Reply to  Allen Duffy
March 9, 2017 5:47 pm

More nit picking “Monckton”. with a ‘ck’.

March 9, 2017 9:37 am

Well said those men! Your work is appreciated, and will hopefully have great impact.

Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 9:38 am

It’s “Taffy 3” (Linden, David) vs. the Yamato (MIT, Goliath). Cheers for the underdog!

Lee L
March 9, 2017 9:40 am

Great stuff Dr. Lindzen. But please, please correct that typo which has AGAIN appeared in your petitions and letters.


Sorry but repeated, uncorrected errors just scream ‘hastily cobbled together’ rather than ‘well thought out and robust’.

Just sayin’.

Reply to  Lee L
March 9, 2017 5:55 pm


Reply to  goldminor
March 10, 2017 8:56 am

MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).

Yep did not correct it

March 9, 2017 9:43 am

The sapient vs the herd .

Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 9:44 am

President Trump’s response to MIT asking to talk with him in person: Sure, MIT. Be sure to bring your analytical equipment. A demonstration of your “science” (slight cough) will show us all just how seriously we should take your “data.”comment image
MIT’s “Wheel of Climate”

(Source for photo: )

(photo caption contest here: )

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 9:51 am

Note Mr. Blue Jeans. Those 2 fingers are telling us something….. “MIT is throwing you a climate curve ball.” Poor guy. The other three aren’t THAT dumb. Wonder whatever happened to him…..

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 10:09 am

“Note Mr. Blue Jeans. Those 2 fingers are telling us something….. “MIT is throwing you a climate curve ball.” ”

That’s funny, Janice! 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 10:15 am

Aw, TA, thanks. (and I thanked you on that other thread, too 🙂 )

john harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 10:46 am

Just awesome! What’s the tuition for this clown show? About 95% of that wheel should say plus or minus no real idea!

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 11, 2017 10:03 pm

Thanks, Janice–that’s a hoot! The thing that strikes me about this is the apparent seriousness with which they present this wheel. The proportions shown have no more rigor than “expert opinion”. I could randomly size those wedges and nobody would be the wiser.

A statistician with real-world experience in estimating wrote: “If someone says the chance of X happening is 71.3%, we know that the three and the one are certainly spurious, and for that matter, the seven is probably spurious, as well.”

Taylor Ponlman
Reply to  wrecktafire
March 12, 2017 6:56 am

Well, at least the .3 has a 10% chance of being correct. The 71, not so much

March 9, 2017 9:49 am

The sound of screeching gravy train brakes.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  ristvan
March 9, 2017 10:01 am

” I love the smell of gravy train brakes in the morning. It smells like …. objective reality!”

Non Nomen
March 9, 2017 9:51 am

Well said, very well said indeed! I can just fully second Prof Lindzen.

Ed Bokman
March 9, 2017 9:54 am

Professor Lindzen is a very brave man, and one day he will be acknowledged for his principled stand against false testimony, vested interests and academic fraud. Thank you for standing up to the attempted assassination of your character by your erstwhile colleagues. We salute you!

Many others share your views but are forced to remain silent because their institutions and faculties are funded by climate-alarmism money. These captive academics are held hostage by those mandarins and masters that control their livelihoods, their positions and salaries, their homes and their families.

May they draw inspiration and hope from your example, and be brave enough to sign your petition to the President of the United States to encourage him to look anew at the tyranny than has been visited upon the world by the United Nations and its network of oppressive agencies.

Barry James
Reply to  Ed Bokman
March 9, 2017 8:11 pm

That is the best summary I have seen of the real motivation behind these parasites and the reason genuine scientists can’t get a word in edgewise.

James Francisco
Reply to  Ed Bokman
March 10, 2017 7:10 am

Would it be possible to redirect the grant money to find proof that there will not be a climate catastrophe?

Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 9:55 am

If MIT wants to make its case, it should do so in a face-to-face, or at least digital point / counterpoint, exchange with Linden and his team.

It’s always easy for warmists to sway a layman in the climate debate with tons of evidence, so-called. But the problem with that is that the layman can’t know what his would-be persuader has left out, as Scott Adams pointed out recently. Only an opponent can point out the omissions, half-truths, and contestable points in the warmists’ presentation.

If MIT were acting in good faith, it would have stated its willingness to engage in a protracted and detailed debate, moderated by an independent and respectable panel of scientists, and “called out” Linden to agree. Lindzen should now respond with such a call-out.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 10:11 am

PS: An example of warmists baffling their targets with BS is the way they convinced GOP bigwigs like former secretaries of state Baker and Schulz to get on board with their carbon tax proposal.

The formal, all-aspects, long-running, moderated debate I propose should have occurred ten years ago. There should be a “science court” (not one part of the legal system) (Google for it) that would hear such debates, and allow cross-examination, and re-hear such debates every so often if necessary.

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 11:17 am

It doesn’t take much in the way of convincing to convince most politicians to support another tax.

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 11:34 am

A few million $$ in re-election contributions does wonders to convince politicians. Easily raised (diverted) from the 100’s of millions in federal grants for climate research. And since the universities typically skim about 50% off the top of the federal grants for “administrative overhead”, they are more than willing to lend their name to keeping the gravy train flowing.

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 2:43 pm

The carbon tax proponents on the GOP side are supported by the nuclear power industry which needs a “price” on carbon to justify project financing in regulated markets for new plants. They offset the reduction in carbon “cost” to get funding streams rolled into regulated consumer prices.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 3:28 pm

@fredberple 11:34

… universities typically skim about 50% off the top …

I’ll try to help out here for those that may be unfamiliar with (some) university research.

What is done: The researchers are usually responding to a Request For Proposal (RFP) from a government agency. The researcher or group responds and includes a budget. They do not concern themselves with the cost to the university. Such costs are negotiated by accountants for both the universities and the funding agencies. The results will vary depending on the type of research and may be expressed as a percentage of total salaries.
The value returned by this calculation will be added on to the budget rather than being skimmed from the money needed for the research.
It does cost to light, A/C, heat, manage, and so on. Everyone accepts these expenses are legitimate.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 10:35 am

K: Totally agree Roger. And, as I have said before here at WUWT, the Trump admin and the skeptics need to go on the offence against the alarmists by demanding answers to questions they can’t answer and asking for scientific evidence and literature the alarmists can’t produce.

I am a layman here, not a scientist. But from what I understand, some of the science the alarmists might be stumped on would include empirical data and scientific literature that suggests the current warming is unusually fast compared to millions and billions of years ago or even compared to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They also should be asked to produce the scientific evidence (empirical data, literature) which shows conclusively that we humans have a significant imprint on that warming which is a cause for concern—no models allowed.

If the temperature adjustments at NOAA cannot be scientifically justified, that needs to come out as well. Put a skeptic in charge of it and have an audit done on NOAA’s procedures and data. Just cutting the CAGW gravy train and expecting it to die out as a result may not be enough—as much as I wish it could be.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
March 9, 2017 11:04 am

Governments don´t fund skeptics.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
March 9, 2017 12:09 pm

I support your idea, NOAA procedures and data handling should really be exposed to a rigorous and truly independent audit. There is nothing to loose on that, those who are sure that NOAA will pass an audit have nothing to fear. A problem might be that an audit should be performed with reference to a set of standards. Unfortunately, I don´t think there is a clear scientific standard to audit NOAA by. I would suggest this set of scientific principles as a starter.

March 9, 2017 10:03 am

Lindzen’s letter to POTUS is clearly much stronger that MIT’s follow-up to POTUS. Lindzen trumped MIT from the start.

Maybe Trump will follow the money and find out the motivation of MIT’s response. Could be a good place for a few trimmings on the budget. Got a number of signatories that could be evaluated.

Harry Passfield
March 9, 2017 10:12 am

Glad to see Happer’s name on that list, again.

March 9, 2017 10:13 am

Dr. Lindzen rules!

This is how the climate war will be won. Facts, logic and real science.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scarface
March 9, 2017 10:21 am

And heroes like Lindzen, Watts, Koutsoyannis, Drapela, Salby, Soon, Monckton, Spencer, Curry, McIntyre, Carter, Lewis, and many, many, more…..,

i.e., the good {people} who {did SOMETHING}.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 4:12 pm

It would be a somewhat normal way if that were true Scarface, with respect. This one though, since scientists didn’t police their own, is going to be won by Donald Trump and – You’re Fired.

It got to the point where this was the only way. Well done voters.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  Scarface
March 9, 2017 11:42 pm

Actually, “facts, logic and real science” haven’t played a major part in public policy until now, and there is little reason to suppose that they will achieve pre-eminence in the future. Some people are more adept than others, but no-one has a good understanding of how the climate works — certainly not to the extent that meaningful, accurate predictions can be reliably made (outside the short term).

If the climate suddenly starts warming again the Warmists will be reinvigorated, screaming through a compliant MSM that we are all doomed unless heaps of money are spent on their pet projects. A proved anthropogenic cause? You won’t need it: it will be assumed, and the panic-merchants will carry the day.

The ONLY thing that will give victory to the sceptics is a prolonged pause (or, better yet, cooling trend) that cannot be denied, fudged or explained away. The general public is disinclined to think and not very bright, but people will not be receptive to a message of thermal Armageddon when their genitalia are freezing off.

Reply to  Scarface
March 13, 2017 6:48 pm

Rewind — a great debate on the topic held as part of the MIT Reunion Weekend in June 1990

If I remember the arrangement correctly:
On the Left side of the stage Red Light and Palm Trees — Stephen Schneider
On the Right side of the stage Blue light and Fir Trees — Richard Lindzen

Those were the days when superficially at least MIT played straight down the middle on Climate Issues. A very intellectually – strong and gentlemanly debate — but in my opinion it was no contest — Lindzen beat Schneider on facts and logic hands down

Note that at that time there was not a whole lot of money in climate science and as Dick characterized the state of things in our discussion after the event — Climate Science was the intellectual backwater of all of the earth sciences — the sharp folks went into Meteorology.

That is when I told Dick that his trust in the ocean temperature record was misplaced, as I’d done some digging in connection with a totally different matter, but which needed data from the sea surface data record on a global scale. I I came to the conclusion that circa 1990 — All of the sea surface and near subsurface data had systematic errors of various kinds. He said that as a theorist — he just had to trust the reliability of the experimental data while he was skeptical of the models.

Reply to  NowyKopernik
March 14, 2017 8:39 am

“That is when I told Dick that his trust in the ocean temperature record was misplaced”

Note that in the decades before the advent of the significant coverage of the oceans by the buoy networks, the ocean temperature data was acquired in the main by ship’s engine room water inlet temperature data.

Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience.

There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken.

The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.

It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.

But hey, this is climate “science” we’re discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?

For the oceans, the situation is different. Until the 1970s, SST observations were made entirely from ships. (After 1970, temperatures were also measured using moored and drifting buoys and, from the early 1980s, using satellites.) Different ships used different measurement methods over the years, each of which potentially had different biases. Some measurements were made by lowering uninsulated buckets over the ship’s side; these tend to produce colder temperatures, owing to the effects of evaporation once the bucket has left the water. Other measurements were taken at the inlet for the intake of water to cool the ship’s engine; these are likely to be biased towards warmer temperatures because of heating from the engine-room.

March 9, 2017 10:20 am

Waiting for the usual alarmist ad hominem attacks on the list of names at the end. Note to Alarmists: Don’t bother. We can look up slander and propaganda on desmogblog ourselves.

March 9, 2017 10:22 am

“By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever,”

I have a little problem with this phrase. If you didn’t know better, you would think human-caused CO2 was causing “modest warming”. But there is no evidence that humans are causing a net increase in the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures, even though theory says it might. There may be NO net increase.

So linking CO2 plant food with “increased warming” is not a good idea. You are in effect saying CO2 is increasing the heat in the atmosphere when you couldn’t prove that if your life depended on it.

It is an inaccurate statement if the “modest warming” is meant to be connected to CO2. We should be as precise in our language as we can manage. No sense in conceding points to the alarmists when we don’t have to.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  TA
March 9, 2017 3:44 pm

For the earth as a whole, increased temperatures may be negligible, but in urban areas, where most people live, the effects of warming from waste heat can be significant- not that that’s bad- who wants a shutdown from a large snowstorm?

Reply to  TA
March 13, 2017 9:08 am


Bill Illis
March 9, 2017 10:26 am

Richard Lindzen also called them out on their “conflict of interest”.

March 9, 2017 10:26 am

Last paragraph “Petion” should be Petition.

Science or Fiction
March 9, 2017 10:28 am

It can be added that United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is established by United Nations to support United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCC:

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and United Nations Environment Program Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process.

Science or Fiction
March 9, 2017 10:33 am

It can also be added that Inter Academy Council, the reviewer of IPCC, was not at all independent from United Nations:

The IAC review of IPCC was not independent!

For example: “…. The United Nations Secretary – General, Kofi Annan, has been a strong supporter of the InterAcademy Council and its mission. When the InterAcademy Council was established in May 2000 he sent the following message: ‘I welcome your initiative to create an InterAcademy Council for providing advisory studies and reports on issues of concern to the United Nations system and other international organizations’.»

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 9, 2017 2:11 pm

Absolutely spot on. Here is a slightly different slant demonstrating the interdependence of IAC and IPCC.

“Is The IPCC Endangered By The IAC Report”

“Our charge here was not to review the science, but simply to ask, “Are their policies and practices set up in such a way as to minimize errors and generally achieve the authoritative nature they sought in the report?”

“Who decides whether to accept the report?
Dr Shapiro: “Well that’s up to the panel [the IPCC]. The panel, of course, are the governments that established IPCC in the first place, of course under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program, and they meet in plenary session in Korea, in the middle of October, which is why they wanted our report by August 30th. They’re the ones that decide.”

Which of course is perfectly fair, as they are the client.”

“The IAC is client-driven and works on a project-by-project basis.
As with all reports produced for clients, where the client is the subject of the report, the long-term survival of the client has to be a major consideration of the review process.

Much has been made of its “independence” from the UN and the IPCC, yet it included people with strong allegiance to the IPCC process, some having been involved with it for many years.”

Science or Fiction
Reply to  dennisambler
March 10, 2017 5:42 pm

Great link. 🙂

Another issue with the InterAcademy Council review is that IAC endorsed and recommended subjective judgement within science.

Here is a quote from the IAC report:
“However, it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.”

And that is a historical blunder by a scientific body. Incredibly naive. A documented subjective judgement is still a subjective judgement. It is as simple as that.

The hallmark of science is objectiveness. Whose judgement that are reflected, or how a consensus was reached is completely irrelevant to science.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
– Michael Crichton

And that is the major blunder by United Nations – the reliance on consensus. Incredibly naive. And it is totally unbelievable that Inter Academy Council did not point out that to IPCC. Interacademy council should have said: Sorry, the principles governing IPCC are flawed – start over again.

So what do we have left when United Nations, Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change and Inter Academy Council all endorse subjective judgments and consensus?

Skepticism. Unfortunately, and also unbelievable, the scientific principles have not been documented in a clear and consistent manner. Believe it or not – or prove me wrong. So I had to do that myself, with a little help from a friend, see if you like it: The principles of science (v7.5)

John Coleman
March 9, 2017 10:33 am

Battle on Dr. Lindzen. There are thousands of us cheering for you every day. Scott Pruitt is making progress at the EPA. If Ivanka will get out of her father’s way the President will march on as well. The skeptics army has landed on the beach by that swamp of Washington D.C. Victory lies ahead.

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Coleman
March 9, 2017 10:50 am

And one of the “many, many, more” heroes for truth in science, John Coleman.

Get to know him and learn a TON about science here:

(youtube — KUSI video — not great picture quality, but, good enough and sound is excellent — well worth watching)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 11:03 am

At ~ 27:25, Mr. Coleman lists several of the Science Realist Heroes.

Fine presentation by a world class professional. Nice job, Mr. Coleman! 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 12:59 pm

Skeptic army special forces legend, the great John Coleman . . Thank you, sir.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 1:55 pm

A much better quality version of the above, a lot easier to look at.
Thanks so much for posting yours!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 2:02 pm

Oh, Yirgach, THANK YOU. MUCH better! I was kind of bummed about that low-quality visual. (and thanks for your affirmation 🙂 )

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 8:44 pm

Wow for such a skeptic he sure accepts the “big bang” model pretty easily. See this movie:

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 10, 2017 2:01 pm

John Q,

“Wow for such a skeptic he sure accepts the “big bang” model pretty easily.”

It seems/seemed kinda obvious that the discussion is/was about skepticism regarding the “global warming/climate change” scare . . Now, I happen to be someone who has criticized several writers here, including our host Mr. Watts, for being overly casual in their use of vague phrases like “climate skeptic” . . and, someone who has brought up the particular matter you refer to right there as well, but in this case it would be rather silly I feel/felt, to spell out at that point in this discussion that I wasn’t just praising him for being “such a skeptic” in a general sense . .

In short, please try to be more context sensitive, I suggest.

Reply to  John Coleman
March 9, 2017 4:15 pm

Is the Ivanka thing for real, or is it just fake news clickbait for losers in the denial stage ??

Heck even those people are advert-fodder

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 9, 2017 5:02 pm

In fact, given, that they’re on the extreme end of the easily-duped scale, they’re the best advert-fodder

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 9, 2017 5:59 pm

That is a good question. I would like to know the truth on that one as well.

Science or Fiction
March 9, 2017 10:43 am

The principles governing United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are far from imposing proper scientific principles on the panel.

Rather than imposing proper scientific principles on IPCC, United Nations allowed IPCC to be governed by:
– the unscientific principle of a mission to support an established view(§1)
– the unscientific principle of consensus (§10)
– an approval process and organization principle which must, by it´s nature, diminish dissenting views. (§11)

March 9, 2017 10:46 am

WOW, just the fact that he was able to send this second letter and have fellow scientist willing to show support is amazing and shows the stranglehold over skeptical scientists is being reduced……
Frankly I thought I would never see this day, I had given up about 2 years ago and was resigned to more and higher carbon taxes about Global Warming, as a Canadian I sill still pay carbon taxes but it will be harder to bring in more, and possibly the current taxes will stay in Canada and maybe, just maybe be used for something useful…as opposed to filling swiss bank accounts

March 9, 2017 10:48 am

Late to the party on the fist post about the Lindzen petition but I eventually posted complaining about the lack of completeness in the appended list of signatories.

“It would be enormously helpful if there weren’t many names on the list which are, er, just names with no quals or anything else appended. Given that the list maker must have been aware that this list would be scrutinised with an electron scope by hyper-avid detractors how could they have been so mind-bogglingly stupid as to do this?? Lordy give a boy a man’s job! Next time I insist on being a proof reader.”

It was a possibly OTT post as I’d just been hauled over the coals about it but it really isn’t helpful to have

BEE, Roger: ();
BEETHAM, Barry: ();

amongst many other apparently unqualified members of the general public included in the list.

I volunteer to do the work myself but it just looks sloppy and unprofessional as it stands.

Reply to  cephus0
March 9, 2017 11:06 am

It appears you may have put a fist through the wall of your glass house

Reply to  birdynumnum
March 9, 2017 11:11 am

What? I’m trying to get the quality of the list improved and don’t need stupid typo ‘humour’ thanks all the same.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  cephus0
March 9, 2017 11:45 am

Cephus, no more detail is needed. These are all well known scientists.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
March 9, 2017 12:11 pm

No Stephen, I’m sorry but they are not. Try and find Roger Bee on the internet as any kind of scientist. The list is getting trashed all over the web because it is putting up unknown people with no more qualifications than possessing a first name and a last name.

If they are indeed as you say qualified scientists then should those qualifications not be included anyway? I’ll say again, I’m fully behind this effort but dismayed to see it so easily disparaged by such obviously silly oversights.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Stephen Richards
March 9, 2017 1:16 pm

Cephus, before I post this (not aimed at you, but at those who are attacking the list), I agree with you (and good for you to try to do a bit of editing, here). We should make every effort to do our very best when we do anything to promote science truth. Needless distractions are not fatal, but, they create waste (mostly, of time).

That said….

This list, with all its flaws, speaks loudly:


Reply to  Stephen Richards
March 9, 2017 2:14 pm

cephus0, I had no problem finding lots of info for Roger Bee…Maybe don’t use Google search ?

Reply to  Stephen Richards
March 9, 2017 2:43 pm

If CAGW advocates are attacking names they do not know on the list, that is called a “red herring” straw man distraction.

It is a bogus argument.

All teams have supporting members who are unknown to the public. What matters is the strength of the lead signers and the quality of the statement.

Lindzen’s initial letter and the follow-up letter above trump every CAGW hissy fit out there.

If you let noisy bottom dwellers, e.g. attp and his groupies, get your goat over people they can’t identify; well, that is not a problem for Lindzen and his coterie.

March 9, 2017 10:51 am

That is stifling a very brave Voice. I thought your country had freedom of speech!!! It seems that right, is disappearing everywhere in the world, including here in Canada. A Despicable act by academia !!! Rod Chilton. ( Also, by the way, a climatologist).

March 9, 2017 10:52 am

Will the marching scientists call Lindzen a den1er of science? Anyone taking bets?

Reply to  philjourdan
March 9, 2017 11:01 am

I doubt that very few of the people who march are scientists. Having lived in the area for a long time, the more appropriate name of “The Union of Concerned Scientists” is “The Union of Escathological ZPG Dingbats with a sprinkle of Luddites”.

Bob knight
March 9, 2017 10:54 am

Is there a specific reference for ‘The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,” I’d really like to share the heck out of it and send it to a number of politicians

Reply to  Bob knight
March 9, 2017 11:13 am

I think the reference is to the lack of a central estimate of ECS in AR5, in contrast to AR4.

March 9, 2017 10:58 am

Yeah !

March 9, 2017 10:59 am

MIT has no place in supporting any particular theory. It only has a place in making sure that it teaches the scientific method and the current state of the art. As an alumnus, I cannot support them when they have become a church and not an educational organization. Perhaps Prof. Lindzen can get them back on the correct path again. Sadly I doubt it.

Reply to  ShrNfr
March 9, 2017 11:11 am

He retired from MIT in June 2012. I met with him in his office for half a day and lunch two weeks before. He critiqued the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth (and a lot more of the book as well).

Reply to  ShrNfr
March 9, 2017 11:23 am


As a fellow graduate of The Great Technological Institute on the Banks of the Charles, I, too, am appalled at the Institute’s behavior. When the President of the Institute sent me own electronic copy of their plan for action on climate change, I removed my Brass Rat and adjusted my charitable giving. I will point out, however, that MIT was chartered as a charitable institution to perform scientific and technical research. The school is merely a part of The Corporation. They had to get officially on-board with Climate Change (TM), I suspect, to ensure the continued flow of funds to the corporation to perform scientific and technical research. Trough feeding at its most basic.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 9, 2017 4:26 pm

I have long suspected but never found or have seen proof that the universities had to sign on to the “sustainability doctrine” to get a place on the gravy train. Anyone know anything about this?

March 9, 2017 10:59 am

I would have liked to sign Dr. Lindzen’s letter as well, as I have been a climatologist all my working life. Thank-you Dr. Lindzen, Rod Chilton.

Big m
Reply to  mysteryseeker
March 9, 2017 11:14 am

Looks to me like the inbred so called elite hung their hat on CO2 like they did shooting up our babies with hep b vaccination at birth. They do it because they think they control the slave minds so wholy we never, ever could wake up and destroy them. Which I personally believe the slaves will soon enough. Put this in your pipe and smoke it too: we live on a flat earth. Yep. It’s totally true. After thousands of hours of research – it is all true. Do a YouTube search on NASA hoax. Get ready to settle in on your final conclusion we are ruled by absolute psychopath liars. 100%.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  mysteryseeker
March 9, 2017 11:50 am

mysteryseeker: Send Prof Lindzen an email asking him to put your name on the list.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2017 2:54 pm

..Hello, Janice the Librarian !!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2017 3:10 pm

Hello, Butch! lol

Butch: Say, I know you. You’re Janice the librarian.
Janice: I — am — no — such — thing. I am a book repository engineer, if you please. (sniff) The nerve.comment image


Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2017 3:50 pm

Thank-you Philip, I will do just that, Cheers, Rod.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2017 8:30 pm

Janice, you make me smile every time you post one of those old time pics or video’s like “faulty towers” etc, thanks! ( how is your buddy?).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2017 9:15 pm

Hi, Sybot,

You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoy them! Thanks, so much, for saying so.

Davy (who will be 3 on June 10th) is doing great. When we jog around 6AM, he wants to “go beat up that big mouth good-for-nothing” (the dog in a fenced yard down the street) and he pulls VERY hard (he is around 80 lbs.). Thankfully, we never meet any dogs on the trail (that’s why I go early). He is super affectionate and likes to snuggle, though, so, all in all, he is a good little companion. Thanks for asking about him.

I hope your orchard pruning isn’t too much of a pain. Good for you to get out there (the other day) right on schedule. Once a farmer, always a farmer, huh? I hope you and Mrs. Sybot are well and that soon, you will be smiling at the sight of daffodils blooming. The daffodils and tulips in the bulb farmers’ fields around here are still hunkered down in their rows, pulling their green jackets tightly about themselves — extra cold this year.

Soon, though, they will peel off those coats, jump up onto the stage in their vivid costumes and shout: “Ta da!”


Take care up there,


Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 10, 2017 12:04 am

Janice, thanks for the reply and spring did come today sadly it came in the form of another 10 cm of rain in an altered state 🙁 the shovels had to come out of the shed: but then again, loppers get a day off! . Good to hear about Davy must be fun!

Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2017 11:22 am

A brilliant letter from Prof Lindzen.

March 9, 2017 11:25 am

James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“In the first century of the American republic, No. 10 was not regarded as among the more important numbers of The Federalist. … Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy.”

Clearly the 4th President of the United States gave a great deal of thought to the problems likely to face the Republic in the years and centuries to follow.

Gary Pearse
March 9, 2017 11:37 am

The enormous redundancy in climate science is beginning to be sensed and understood by these burgeoning organizations. They should have seen this many years ago before Trump came along. The rather simple formula with CO2 and feedbacks (impossibly all positive) driving climate has, despite 100s of thousands of studies (97% Cook sifted through over 100k papers published in one decade for his study) over 30yrs not had any revisions or new ideas. IPCC has expressed higher and higher confidence and the ‘consensus is touted to be almost complete.

This prompted the Ozzie government to chop CSIRO’ s climate budget (rather gave them a rationale to do so). It prompted cutting off NYT’s entire climate news division and Joe Romm ‘s Climate Progress, etc.

After a 100k papers on hockey sticks or its various parts you’ d think that physicists would be aware of how simple supply and demand works. Now with the Trump wrecking ball about to swing, there is going to be more and more defections going forward as climate scientists ‘Sauve qui peut’ on the losing side. But first comes the anger.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 9, 2017 2:31 pm

They should have seen this many years ago before Trump came along.

Actually, I think they did! But – not unlike Pachauri refusing to resign as IPCC head honcho – the arms, elbows, hands and fingers of the UN/EU had to stick to their CO2-causes-all-evils money-grubbing guns until the new, improved sibling (rival?!) bandwagon, aka IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), had sufficiently matured to bring the dedicated missionaries on board.

As I’ve noted elsewhere (perhaps even here!) a rather significant tidbit from the current IPBES proceedings appears to signal that CO2 as primary cause is rapidly falling from favour:

In his keynote speech, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary Richard Kinley urged both the climate change and biodiversity communities to focus on positive synergies to enhance “our” work. He suggested fully integrating the climate and biodiversity agendas with the implementation of the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals -hro] in national economic development and investment plans. He noted that the IPBES’ global assessment “can be an important input” for the next round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement [my bold -hro]

YMMV, but I fully expect all the “transformative” and “innovative” send-money-now solutions will emanate from the UN’s far foggier “Sustainable Development” front. Whether their predictable alarms will yield anything more than inane slogans, tweets and word-salads of obeisance remains to be seen. My best guess: no they won’t, because, well, because – thanks to the Interwebs – too many people have seen this 5th-rate flick before;-)

March 9, 2017 11:41 am

Lindzen and the petition clearly represent a direct threat to the livelihood of a great many climate scientists that make a living from the public purse under the assumption that climate change is dangerous.

Should climate change be found to be benign or even helpful, these scientists would in large part be out of a job. This is a clear conflict of interest on the part of PUBLICLY FUNDED climate scientists to judge whether their labors SHOULD BE FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS.

By all means, if these climate scientists can raise funds privately, they are more than welcome to continue their research. However, on the question of whether their work should be funded by the public, these very same scientists should be disqualified from paticipation in the decision.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  ferdberple
March 9, 2017 11:48 am

It doesn’t only threaten climate scientists, and rightly so, but the whole scam from UN, EU, USA and right across the planet. This scam was spread like a virus using communist techniques and useful idiots.

There are $trillions involved

Leo Smith
Reply to  ferdberple
March 9, 2017 2:27 pm

never mind the scientists: debunk AGW and the case for renewable energy collapses: that’s a trillion dollar fraud on its own.

March 9, 2017 12:09 pm

Clearly Madison recognized the “tyranny of the majority” as the greatest internal threat to the Republic. Should 97% of climate scientists actually believe something to be true, Madison recognized the great danger this represented in his writings:

The Federalist No. 10
Thursday, November 22, 1787
James Madison

“So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.”

March 9, 2017 12:15 pm

The “MIT Faculty” rebuttal seems somewhat overblown to me. Dr. Lindzen did not use MIT letterhead or identification other than to note his position with MIT in his signature block. The rebuttal is on MIT letterhead and purports to represent the entire faculty. It looks like they have 22 names. The MIT site has photo’s for 32 faculty members (one is Dr. Lindzen).

It did not seem likely that a reader would assume Dr. Lindzen was speaking on behalf of the entire faculty. Should we expect a department to make such mailings whenever any faculty member steps outside the bounds with the majority’s “group” assesments. I don’t think I’d have a problem if they wanted to respond with their own position, but casting it as a rebuttal strikes me the wrong way.

March 9, 2017 12:27 pm

BAM! Lindzen’s Hammer. Cool, measured, hyper-intelligent response to Team Lysenko at MIT. Let this layman suggest that the kool aid kids read “Tuxedo Park” that is the reputation they are trashing.

Timo Soren
March 9, 2017 12:35 pm

Have to laugh at the MIT rebuttal since the best excuses they could give were

sea-level rise, ocean acidification and increases in extreme flooding and droughts.

Wow, such a scary list.
SL: no change empirically
OA: They threw out ALL the data from 1910 to 1988 only have data from 1990 to now and a decrease for 8.2-8.1 is what they have, at ‘worst’
EFD: no empirical support

I shutter at the dire future and their loss of funding.

March 9, 2017 12:54 pm

Here is my recent exchange with Lindzen.
Dr Norman Page Geologist
If it is still possible I would like to add my name to the Petition to withdraw from the UNFCCC. There is no danger from anthropogenic global warming. You and the Petition co-signers might also therefore urge the EPA to revisit and reverse its endangerment finding.Climate is controlled by natural cycles. We are just past the 2004 peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See my EAE paper at
and earlier accessible blog version at

Here is the abstract for convenience :
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

Section 3 of the paper may be of particular interest to you because it discusses future temperature trends.Feel free to refer to the paper and its conclusions in any testimony you may give in future to government agencies or committees. If you have time I would appreciate hearing your views on the working hypothesis which the paper puts forwards.

Best Regards Norman Page.

Dear Norman,
Thanks. Please send your degrees and professional positions to
Best, Dick

Janice Moore
Reply to  Norman Page
March 9, 2017 1:20 pm

Thanks for posting that, Dr. Page — THIS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE MAIN POST — AT THE TOP.

…. Please send your degrees and professional positions to
Best, Dick

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 9, 2017 2:59 pm

+ 100

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 9, 2017 12:57 pm

It isn’t just academics whose money is threatened by the excellent Lindzen letter -there are huge amounts of money and vested interest threatened amongst unscrupulous or ignorant politicians , the entire windmill industry and its backers and the entire deceitful and corrupt green enviro movement. No one should be in any doubt that these people have no scruple and will go to any length to protect their gravy train and irrational religion. It is going to be a long hard slog to win this fight and neither Lindzen nor Trump on their own can defeat this many headed hydra monster – but we all wish them well.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
March 9, 2017 3:01 pm

..Don’t forget…Political reputations are also on the line for many in the coming elections…Should be interesting..

March 9, 2017 1:03 pm

Once you lose faith in M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), to just pursue knowledge as an end in itself, you begin to wonder what MIT ever meant.
What it always meant to me, was a place I was way too stupid to attend.

March 9, 2017 1:07 pm

That MIT letter objecting to Lindzen’s petition should have been reworded something like this:
comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 9, 2017 1:21 pm

lol — +1

James Francisco
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 10, 2017 7:48 am

Great. Wish I had a direct line to POTUS. I would forward this comment. It reminded me of a comment from a fellow employee. “The only thing worse than doing business for the government was, Not doing business for the government.

March 9, 2017 2:19 pm

350 signers. Assuming it stays at only 350, that means the 97% of comparable credentialed Cagwers can be described as having 11,666.6666 adherents.

Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 2:35 pm

Multiple Voluntary Science Courts
Roger Knights
(Earlier posted as a comment on Climate Etc. 1/29/16)

Here’s an initiative any college or scientific society could take that would end the gridlock. Let there be two, three, many voluntary science courts! I.e., dozens. Universities and/or scientific societies and/or think tanks and/or a collaboration of them would sponsor one or more independent science courts. Most of these courts would specialize on a single topic or group of related topics. A university’s professors would usually hear cases over the summer vacation; emeritus professors could be active year-round. Cases could be “in session” for months, as each side responds to the other side’s claims or thinks of improvements to its own case. Cases could be re-opened after two or three years, say, if important new findings or interpretations have occurred.
Science courts specializing in the same topic could collaborate (i.e., supply judges for the same case). Everything, or almost everything, could be done over the Internet, using sophisticated software, and be archived there. Georgia Tech could be the pioneer (Judge Judy already works there!). It needn’t supply all or most of the judges—it would just supply the sponsorship, the technical infrastructure, and the initial Oomph to get things rolling. Maybe it could collaborate with the Climate Dialog site. A science court could be built on that site’s software, modifying it to include judges as part of the process.
If one of the sponsors of a science court appointed biased judges, another sponsor could have its judges review the transcripts and issue its own decision, criticizing the prior court’s ruling. Fear of being publicly corrected in this way, and being proved wrong later in public, would tend to keep biased panels closer to the straight and narrow, and to keep universities from appointing biased members.
In the debate over global warming, cases should be broken down to manageable subtopics, like the Hockey Stick, acidification, UHI, arctic ice, corals, storms, CO2 fertilization, peer review, bias in govt. funding and publication, purported Big Oil funding of a “well-funded, well-organized” skeptic movement, the 97% consensus, warmist predictions, the hot spot, the stratosphere, oceanic cycles, the efficacy of wind and solar power, nuclear power, extinctions, aerosols, methane, arctic permafrost, polar bears, feedbacks, isotonic adjustments, Antarctic ice shelves, the Pause, flooding and drought, snowfall, glaciers, sea level, volcanoes, wildfires, beetles, homogenization, temperature records, ocean cycles, the sun, geo-engineering, diseases, refugees, etc.
Transcripts of these hearings could be posted on the Internet. Getting all of both sides’ arguments together online would be the greatest benefit of such courts, more than their judgments. And science fans could get hooked on reading them. The controversy would spice up the topics treated, so it might also tempt members of the public to read them (and thereby to indirectly learn more about science).
Hearings needn’t be about socially important and hotly contested matters. They could be scientifically valuable anyway, as a way of clearing the air, getting tidbits of new ideas on the record, and getting a feeling for current thinking on a topic. These hearings would presumably be conversational and low-key. (Or maybe not!)
Science courts are needed because there are no formal forums for extensive debate about scientific topics, especially ones where “received opinion” reigns supreme. Journals do not provide one; they are interested in findings and review papers instead.
Universities OTOH would worry about damage to their reputation in the future if they were to endorse currently favored dogmas that had weak points that might in time prove fatal, or that competing science courts might consider to be disconfirming. So they’d be inclined to be cautious and hedge their conclusions. They’d tend to avoid hopping on bandwagons. (Importantly, their thorough findings and meticulous reasoning, with all cards on the table, would help to sink “fringe” claims too, and strengthen valid consensus POVs.)
If multiple science courts were in existence, many erroneous claims in many fields would have been refuted, weakened (or strengthened), modified, or at least clarified, much earlier than they were. (Even if a court’s main finding were only that more research is needed in certain areas, that would be greatly beneficial.) These include claims, many still active, for and against these topics:

Continental drift.
Uniformitarianism in geology.
Raymond Dart’s important 1924 fossil (ignored by the mainstream).
Piltdown man (skeptics were marginalized).
Rogue waves (anecdotal reports ignored or denied by experts).
Cold fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.
Forest fire management.
Acid rain.
Psychoanalysis’s effectiveness.
Behaviorism, which was dogma for decades in American psychology departments.
Lie detectors. (Pretty much settled by a scientific society’s report on the topic.)
The government’s anti-fat, anti-salt, pro-starch nutrition advice.
Tobacco. (I.e., science courts could have been warning about it a decade before the surgeon general’s report.)
“Pseudo” sclerosis (denial of the reality of multiple sclerosis).
Lyme disease (severe underestimation of the number of victims).
Drown-proofing technique (underplayed by expert consensus).
Heimlich hug (opposed and underplayed by expert consensus).
Biological cause of stomach ulcers (opposed by expert consensus).
Breast implants.
Swine flu, SARS, Mad cow disease, Ebola.
Nuclear winter.
Topics in criminology, such as gun control, the drug war, mandatory minimums, etc.

Here are additional topics Henry Bauer thinks are not getting a fair evaluation (from his book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine): “Unwarranted dogmatism has taken over in many fields of science: in Big-Bang cosmology, dinosaur extinction, theory of smell, string theory, Alzheimer’s amyloid theory, specificity and efficacy of psychotropic drugs, cold fusion, second-hand smoke . . . .”

Unofficial science courts finesse the objections many people have to an officially designated court. And I sense that the time is very ripe for such science courts. There are thousands of colleges worldwide. I can easily see 0.1% (20) jumping on this—as a start! I can see it getting to 1% in five years, and becoming an established institution.

I Googled for: “Science Court: A bibliography” and got four useful links at the top of the page:

1. Science Courts… and Mixed Science-Policy Decisions
The Science Court Experiment: An Interim Report*:
(* Reprinted with permission from 193 Science 654 (1976))
Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology**
(** The task force is composed of three members of the presidential advisory group — Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz (chairman), Dr. Donald Kennedy and Dr. Fred Seitz – and [16 others])

2. The Science Court is Dead; Long Live the Science Court!

3, Symposium Index – The Science Court – Pierce Law Center IP Mall

4. The Science Court: A Bibliography. Jon R. Cavicchi*.

Reply to  Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 8:25 pm

Kind of sounds like WUWT in a way.

Brent Hargreaves
March 9, 2017 2:57 pm

Said it before, will say it again….. Anthony Watts is a hero and if I had any say in it the Queen would award him a knighthood. Arise, Sir Anthony!

Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
March 9, 2017 3:04 pm

..Liberal Elites…”We are not amused” !!

Wayne Delbeke
March 9, 2017 2:57 pm

Maybe someone should nominate Lindzen for MIT’s new “Rule Breaker” award – official name the “Disobedience Award”.

He won’t get it, but it would be an interesting nomination.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
March 9, 2017 3:08 pm

Maybe call it the “Galileo Galilei Award” ? A.W would also qualify and so many others…

Wayne Delbeke
March 9, 2017 3:04 pm


“You don’t change the world by doing what you’re told.”
— Joi Ito, Director, MIT Media Lab

March 9, 2017 3:13 pm

For too long the bullies in the climate Armageddon business have gotten away with selling their [pruned] through a scientifically illiterate and compromised media . Dr. Lindzen and thousands of honest real scientists have had enough and now the gestapo tactics of the Democrat government and their $billionaire bag men are
no longer backed by the brown shirts selling green .
Let’s hope real scientists can restore the integrity lost because of green wash con artists .

Pop Piasa
March 9, 2017 3:19 pm

“risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide”

To see these requires a microscope and some imagination.

March 9, 2017 3:33 pm

I believe that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels is not such a good idea. I would like to use AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too flawed to defend. It is all a matter of sceince.

The AGW conjecture sounds plausable at first but upon closer examination it is severely flawed. In part to generate evidence to support the AGW conjecture the IPCC supported the development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of different models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. If there were no guess work then only one model would have been supported. The plethora of models have generated a wide range of predictions for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all prediicted global warming that never happened. If they are evidence of anything it is that the AGW conjecture is flawed. The climate simulations actually beg the question because it is hard coded in that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming so that is what the simulation results show. Because they beg the question such sumulations are totally useless. If the IPCC actually learned something from the simulations they would have by now reduced the number of different models under consideration but that has not happened. Others have generated models that show that climate is correlated to solar and ocean effects and not to CO2.

There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water holds less CO2 then cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additinal CO2 adds to warming. It is all just speculation. Changing levels of CO2 have been a result of climate change and not a cause of climate change.

The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided by gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect..So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the atmophere keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would other wise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is a function of gravity, the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the depth of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gasses in the atmosphere. It is a convective greenhouse effect and it accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

Kyoji Kimoto, reporting in an artiicle entitled “Basic Global Working Hypothesis is Wrong” has found that the original calculation of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 is too great by more than a factor of 20 because original calculations forgot to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 wiill cause a small but very signiificant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a Planck Climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, CO2 provides a Plankc climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C which is rather trivial.

Then there is the issue of feedbacks. To make the warming effect of CO2 seem significant the AGW conjecrture assumes that H2O will provide a positive feedback and hence amplify the warming effect caused by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. The idea is that warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere and because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas, more H2O causes more warming and hence amplifies the warming effect of CO2. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface which is some form of H2O to where clouds form and radiate to space. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both LWIR absorption band radation and convection combined. The cooling effect of H2O is also evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is siginificantly less than the dry lapse rate. So in reality H2O provides a negative feedback hence retarding any warming effect that CO2 might have. The H2O feedback also has to be negative for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to evolve.

If CO2 really affected climate than the increase in CO2 over the last 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has found nothing the would narrow their range of guesses one iota. The IPCC deliberately ignore’s all logic indicating that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really less than their published range for fear of losing their funding. Supporting the AGW conjecture has been a matter of politics and not science. Belief in the AGW conjecture is really anti science.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  willhaas
March 9, 2017 3:53 pm

I have more confidence in our progeny finding a suitable replacement for fossil fuels (when that time comes) than I have in being miserly with them and leaving present humanity to bear the cost.
My greatest concern for future generations is a world government controlling whatever the source of energy happens to be.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 9, 2017 4:29 pm

I share your hope but those who fail to plan, plan to fail. The Earth’s space and resources are finite and we are already facing problems that are more than anything else a result of Mankind’s out of control population. As time goes on the population problem will become more important yet more difficult to solve. If we do not control our own population then Nature will, catastrophically. Fossil fuels are already becoming more difficult to come by but new developments in technology have probably given us several hundred years more before the supplies run out but they will run out because the supplies are finite. Climate is not a problem that Mankind has the power to solve but human population is. I would hope that humanity can come up with a better approach to population control than war. First we have to recognize the problem before we can solve it.

Reply to  willhaas
March 10, 2017 8:03 am

“Fail to plan” – like the old USSR 5 year plans?

Your premise is flawed by the belief that “someone” has to plan for everyone. My statement earlier referred to a time before government planning was all the rage. What happened was that the supply of Whale Oil was not keeping up with demand, which was driving the cost skyward. What happened (without central planning) is someone found an alternative that was both cheaper and more plentiful. The government did not plan it. The free market took care of it.

Fossil is finite (relatively speaking). As the supply dwindles, the cost will increase. At some point, without government planning (if the government can stay out of the way), someone will come up with an alternative. Right now, that alternative is not cost effective. But as the cost of fossil increases, the alternative will become more cost effective. No government mandate will cause the switch to the alternative. The market will. And the next Rockefeller (not his idiot off springs) may be sitting right next to you. But he is not sitting in government.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 9, 2017 5:15 pm

Will, as time goes on the population will shrink, if all the nations of the world are allowed affluence.
That is a fact borne out in recent global history.
We cannot afford to deprive the rest of the world the source of this affluence, which is cheap electricity and transportation. Right now that is carbon based. By the time these sources actually become rare, there will assuredly be less population to consume them, if we can break the third world poverty cycle. This is more a political and ideological challenge than it is technological. Meanwhile it is an expectation based on common sense (not merely a hope) that technology will continue to advance based upon necessity being “the mother of invention”. Nuclear can and will see the humanity through until the next energy revolution IMHO.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 10, 2017 12:31 pm

I never said how planning was to take place.

Reply to  willhaas
March 10, 2017 7:43 am

Remember the whale oil.

Larry Hamlin
March 9, 2017 3:42 pm

Excellent letter by Dr. Lindzen in response to the “usual suspects” letter signed by the MIT climate alarmist crowd that have sold out real science in favor of supporting politicalized science which leads to research funds and grants from a government which has been pushing alarmist garbage under Obama’s reign of terror.

Good for Dr. Lindzen!!

March 9, 2017 3:58 pm

The letter by the faculty has 22 names. Look at the the POAC faculty at MIT – there are 37 members. That means only 59% of the PAOC faculty signed the letter. Not too bad given the normal Lib/Cons makeup of most faculty in academia.

Reply to  cap6097
March 9, 2017 4:40 pm

you must have calculated wrong … 22/37 = 0.97

Reply to  DonM
March 9, 2017 4:49 pm

Forgive me DonM. I should realize that 97% is the right answer for every problem in climatology.

Reply to  DonM
March 9, 2017 4:52 pm

I don’t think so, it looks like 59%. 50% would be about 18, and 4 more to make it 22, and about 8 or 9 more to make it 75% from 18. So, 59 and a half %.
Still for any group to come out of the climate closet is impressive. At a university no less.

Reply to  DonM
March 9, 2017 4:54 pm

What was I thinking, it has to be 97 %.

Reply to  DonM
March 10, 2017 8:05 am

Million man math.

March 9, 2017 4:31 pm

Sort of impressive that one single university has as many signatories as a whole world of climate d-ers.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
March 9, 2017 4:53 pm

“ReallySkeptical March 9, 2017 at 4:31 pm”

Give it up. You make no sense.

Reply to  JPeden
March 9, 2017 5:01 pm

Really skeptical, I’ll give you something else to think about. They aren’t the only ones that think that way. Your concensus isn’t as solid as you think it is. The Climate Ship has sprung a leak.

March 9, 2017 4:50 pm

The MIT letter to which Lindzen is responding is the most anemic thing I’ve ever seen coming from the mouths of Warmists. It sounds like they are Depressed, I hope.

Roger Knights
March 9, 2017 7:50 pm

This article, “Trump the Weakling,” documents how often Trump folds when opposed. I hope it doesn’t apply to climate alarmism.

March 9, 2017 8:40 pm

MIT professors sent a letter to POTUS using the logical fallacies of argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum to support their argument that man made CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate phenomena.

Moreover, MIT’s letter made bogus claims that droughts, floods, ocean pH and Sea Level Rise trends are dangerously increasing, which are claims not supported by the empirical evidence.

It’s depressing to see professors from one of the world’s most esteemed institutions sacrifice scientific integrity on the alter of research grant funding.

When (not if) this CAGW sc*m is officially disconfirmed, I hope there will be serious repurcussions against “scientists” that supported it even after all empirical evidence clearly showed it to be an untenable hypothesis.

March 9, 2017 10:50 pm

Well done Professor Lindzen.

Your second letter is better than the first. It might have been even better with a few graphs and diagrams. IPCC model forecasts vs actual temperatures, CO2 steady increase vs satellite temperatures, past 1,000 years temperatures.

We are fortunate that he and the other scientists are so brave. Let us hope President Trump responds.

Steve Ta
March 10, 2017 4:07 am

Can someone explain to me how this sort of criticism of “Climate Science” is repeatedly treated as an “attack on science” ???

We have the upcoming events where a number of scientists will be marching to show their support for “science” and the concern that “science” is under threat from the new administration.

But can anyone provide any evidence that anything other than climate science is being “attacked”? (perhaps GM, and anti-va*ers, but that’s scraping the loony barrel).

Why are not the vast majority of working scientists asking themselves what it might be about climate science in particular that gets all this attention? Do they not ever ask themselves if perhaps it really is a PoS?

March 10, 2017 6:03 am

I read the MIT letter. I don’t know why anyone has a problem with a group of signatories expressing their opinion. Isn’t that exactly what Lindzen’s petition is doing?

Lindzen cites Madison’s caution on letting interested parties judge their own issues. But what does that even relate to? These are petitioners – like Lindzen’s list. They don’t get a final say, so the admonishment is ill-directed.

It seems Lindzen is trying to argue that their opinion should be disqualified in some way. One can disagree with a point of view and still “defend to the death” the right to express it. I hope we all think that way.

Reply to  barry
March 10, 2017 11:59 am

barry March 10, 2017 at 6:03 am

It seems Lindzen is trying to argue that their opinion should be disqualified in some way. One can disagree with a point of view and still “defend to the death” the right to express it. I hope we all think that way.

No, Lindzen is simply arguing that the hypotheses involved in CO2-Climate Change have been proven to be very dubious, at the least. And that therefore they do not merit the interest and expense that the United States Government has been promoting and supporting.

But how does Lindzen’s message threaten Free Speech? I ask because so many people still seem to think or allege that if the content of their Free Speech is disputed by Free Speech to the contrary, this mere disagreement threatens their Free Speech Right; when all the contrary Free Speech is saying is that “You are wrong,” not that you can’t say whatever you want to say.

And contrary to what you fear, barry, it has most obviously been the Believers in CO2-Climate Change who want to muzzle the dissenting speech of the Skeptics, not the converse. This desire is almost certainly because the Believers either know that they’re wrong and just want to keep on with a lucrative or psychologically gratifying business as usual state of affairs while they’re “Saving the Planet!”; or that they really don’t care whether what they claim is true and simply don’t want to hear or let anyone else hear anything contradicting their “narrative”, because it is really only a Propaganda tactic in service of a Totalitarian end which itself necessarily involves extinguishing Free Speech!

In other words, barry, “Methinks thy dost Projecteth too much.”

Reply to  barry
March 11, 2017 6:46 am

But how does Lindzen’s message threaten Free Speech?

It doesn’t threaten free speech generally. Lindzen seems to be saying these signatories are disqualified from giving an opinion because

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause”

But they are not the judges of their ’cause’ (if any), only of their research. Politicians are the deciders, not them.

Or why quote Madison if Lindzen is not saying that these people should be barred from giving opinion? I think the words “No man is allowed” are fairly clear.

Reply to  barry
March 11, 2017 4:33 pm

LIndzen judged their research and he is correct. You are the one who brought up the Right to Free Speech.

In other words, barry, “Methinks thy dost Projecteth too much.”

March 10, 2017 5:21 pm

Bravo Richard Lindzen! He fights the good fight.

One Richard Lindzen is worth 50 Kerry Emanuels.

March 11, 2017 4:30 am

How can anyone that believes in real science argue against that letter? The very fact that is has upset some people proves there is a serious problem as our universities. These critics need to be reminded jobs are not entitlements.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Snowflakes are Staffing the EPA image

Reply to  co2islife
March 13, 2017 6:03 pm

I got a solicitation for funds today from Boston Children’s Hospital — a world renowned institution and well worth our support. The point of this reference however, was that they provided a small separate “data sheet” with pictures of 5 or so of the 10 volunteer Therapy Dogs which they employ to both comfort the afflicted children and to provide some good vibes for the staff. The EPA might put out an appeal for volunteer Dogs to sooth the staff — a good number of whom may be searching for gainful employment in the next fiscal year.

Reply to  NowyKopernik
March 13, 2017 6:06 pm

LOL, maybe they can all become dog walkers. I don’t know how much demand there will be for corrupt ex-EPA bureaucrats.

Russ R.
March 12, 2017 8:54 am

Well done, Professor Lindzen. I know there is a lot of “institutional pressure” to make the “correct” analysis of what the data says. It takes courage to stand up to those that would turn real science into political science. It was never meant to be so, and every step down that path must be fought with relentless vigor.
Here is another one of your colleagues who has take the “path more travelled”, and found what he was looking for. And if the data didn’t support his pre-determined conclusion, then the data must be “adjusted” until it did:

March 13, 2017 5:49 pm

This evening, Al Gore appeared on the PBS News Letter to pitch his new book, “The assault on reason.” I congratulate and thank Mr. Gore for siding with reason. However, I have to point out to Mr. Gore that his position on global warming is not reasoned. If he is open to reasoned debate on this issue I’d be delighted to participate on the opposing side..

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
March 13, 2017 5:59 pm

Terry, Gore is a well known advocate, you aren’t even close to being known by anyone, so why would he even consider arguing with you?

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 6:08 pm


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In a reasoned debate, the renown of the participants is irrelevant.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 6:14 pm

Correct Terry, Gore considers you are irrelevant, and as such, you are.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 6:21 pm


You have changed the topic of debate from Gore’s contention to me. This is an example of an “ad hominem argument.” The understanding of philosophers who have studied this kind of argument is that it is illogical, How do you respond?

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 7:06 pm


Your response of March 13 at 6:30 pm amounts to a capitulation. You are evidently unable to defend Gore by means other than citing his renown. He is a graduate of Harvard College, former U.S. Senator, former Vice President of the U.S., blah, blah, blah.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 6:30 pm

Pretty simple Terry, Gore will not waste his time with you. He might debate someone like Scott Pruitt, but nobody knows who/what you are.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 7:17 pm

Terry, no capitulation at all. Get back to me when you win a Nobel.
Until then, all you are is some nobody posting on WUWT.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 7:24 pm


You support my point through resort to an ad hominem argument.


Reply to  David Dirkse
March 14, 2017 8:21 am

You mean the same one that Obama won for doing nothing?

Guess all you have to do is fool enough of the people enough of the time.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 7:34 pm

Terry, I don’t care what you think, All Gore doesn’t care either. The fact is, you are irrelevant. If you disagree, please provide evidence that you are relevant.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 7:51 pm


Evidence in regard to the issue of man-made global warming I would be glad to provide. Evidence in regard to the renown of those who engage in debate over this issue is, however, irrelevant.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 14, 2017 8:24 am

Terry is relevant to me, and others here. Perhaps in your haste to denigrate him, you misspoke. What you meant to say is that he is not relevant to YOU. Which is fine, you are not relevant either.

Reply to  philjourdan
March 14, 2017 7:50 pm

In the eternal battle between truth and power, there have always been those who have sided with power and they have often profited from taking this position. Based upon profit-seeking behavior one expects to observe this phenomenon again and again.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 7:57 pm

Since you are unable to provide any evidence that you are relevant, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that you are irrelevant.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 8:04 pm


Your conclusion is inconsistent with logic, however, In reaching this conclusion you redefine “logic.”

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 8:09 pm

When and if you can provide concrete evidence of your relevancy, my conclusion might change. Until you provide evidence of your relevancy, my conclusion is sound. You are not relevant.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 8:22 pm


The phrase “evidence of your relevancy” is an oxymoron. Under the scientific method it is not the renown of a person that is relevant but rather is the observational data that is relevant. We check the claims of persons against the observational data independent of the renown of these persons in determining whether the claims of these persons are correct. In the conflict between Galileo and the Vatican, it was the Vatican that was more powerful but Galileo who was observationally correct.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 8:29 pm

Terry, your inability to provide a single item of evidenc that you are relevant proves my point. Thank you.

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 13, 2017 8:32 pm

Terry, can you provide me with one observational data point showing your relevancy?

Reply to  David Dirkse
March 14, 2017 8:11 am

You have to have an argument to begin with, which algore does not. So no, he would not consider arguing with anyone. His life is based on the avoidance of debate.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
March 13, 2017 6:05 pm

Oops, Gore’s book was published a decade ago.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
March 13, 2017 6:17 pm

What is your point?