Atmospheric Physicist Richard Lindzen says climate change isn’t “particularly dangerous” as climate alarmism and eco-anxiety continues to escalate.
“The strange thing – and this is what I find very peculiar about the UN’s IPCC, there’s only one section of it dealing with science, and that’s the working group one report,” Mr Lindzen told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.
“Although it is biased, I won’t deny that, it never comes out with predictions of catastrophe.”
From the comments over at the You Tube LINK:
Carl David2 days ago
My favourite Richard Lindzen quote about CO2 being a pollutant. “What sort of pollutant is it that when you remove it, everything dies”.
No one is suggesting removing it.
Apart from every single alarmist and co2 enthusiast commentator I’ve ever heard.
Can you cite an example?
Good grief FN! Just google “CO2 removal” for your answer. I know you can figure out how to do that.
You seem to be talking about reduction rather than removal.
Well it does require “removal” if your aim is to achieve “reduction”.
?
Same stupid nit picking.
There are enough mindless idiots in the world we have to put up with, do you have to do it here?
Aren’t there puppies you can torture instead?
You seem to be talking nonsense just for the sake of it.
he’s a classic climatista
no, there are many people calling for REMOVAL
also, google “proforestation”- a fantasy that says locking up all the forests will help REMOVE CO2
You can not be serious? Have you ever heard of “Carbon Capture”? Here’s one of my old geology lecturers. He used to be anti-establishment until the establishment mutated to the extreme left. They even gave him a gong.
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/persons/stuart-haszeldine
Carbon capture is about CO2 reduction in the atmosphere, not its removal. Lindzen’s comment about ‘everything dies’ would only be valid if it was removed. No one is calling for removal, only reduction towards pre-industrial levels.
Modern society cannot function at pre-industrial levels though.
Think things through ffs.
Please explain how modern society would suffer if we got CO2 down to PI levels?
Crop growth (tons per acre) would also then drop to PI levels and wouldn’t sustain our current population
Getting to 280ppm would require a severe reduction in economic activity over a long peiod of time.
Less CO2 would also mean less food from C3 plants, that are already not at optimum growth rates with cO2 under the 750 to 1500ppm range. There would be less food to support human and animal life.
FOOD SHORTAGES!
OK. Turn off your computer, and all tech.
Just go and live in a pre-industrial world. — That’s how dumb that is.
Move yourself to a village in any number of African countries and you will have a zero-carbon footprint. Oh, you won’t have any food, sanitation, transport, medicine, heating, cooling, hospitals, roads etc, etc., etc. either — but that’s ok, you’ll be saving the planet from “industrialization” —
Lindzen made a true statement about how carbon dioxide is necessary for almost all life on this planet. You can not refute that statement because it is true. That fact makes people wonder why CO2 is demonized as a pollutant.
Then we have nitwits like you making ridiculous, repeated comments about removing CO2. The final nail must have gone through your head.
since you’re too lazy to do the research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proforestation
“According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, about 730 billion tons of CO2 (or 199 billion tons of carbon) will need to be removed from the atmosphere by 2100.”
“In the United States, forests currently remove enough atmospheric CO2 to reduce national net emissions by 11 percent each year.[1] And each additional 8.6 million hectares of land regenerated to natural forest would sequester another 1 billion tons of carbon by 2100.[12]”
and, many inventors have come up with Rube Goldberg devices to REMOVE CO2
LOL! — Plenty are. Plenty are calling for the total de-carbonization of the planet. Removing ALL co2 anthropogenic emissions — before the planet burns.. Its a bad joke really..
Of course MANY people are saying just that. There’s a big movement on now that we shouldn’t just stop emitting it but we must remove it too back to where it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Nope, Global Warming is not man made.
Global Warming is Mann made.
How about defining dangerous?
California man arrested 10 times in 31 days drove to police station in stolen car to pick up property: cops | Fox News
Will they indict him for “carbon”?
While I have serious doubts about whether global warming is even happening, and while I believe that climatology is on an intellectual level with astrology, I can’t see that a slight warming would be such a bad thing. Longer growing seasons and warmer winters don’t sound so bad to me. (Actually I think climatology is on an even lower intellectual level than astrology. I’d probably place it somewhere between throwing virgins into volcanos to appease the volcano goddess and driving out the devil through exorcism to cure mental illness.)
Ask a climate alarmist why they get two crops of tomatoes per year in south TX but barely one in Minnesota. Where’s the problem with that?
Here, we don’t notice the warming much compared to the background COLD !
No need for doubts
No global warming from 2015 to 2023 (UAH data) — 101 months
Richard Greene:
Nonsense!
The temporary 2015 temperature peak was a man-made peak, caused by a Chinese edict to .reduce SO2 aerosol pollution. It was highly successful, with industrial SO2 aerosol emissions falling by 33 million tons, between 2014 and 2015–A MASSIVE AMOUNT..
You CANNOT use that temperature to claim that there has been no warming since 2015.
“climatology is on an even lower intellectual level than astrology”
I was convinced of that when I heard Al Gore saying the oceans are boiling.
0.023 F/yr warming is not a catastrophe!
Global warming….the 40+ year emergency
50+ years of “Climate Emergency” = NO EMERGENCY
Slowest. Boogeyman. Ever.
What nobody ever mentions is how little the average global temperature will likely change over a single lifetime. The climate during your childhood will not noticeably be different when you are in a retirement home.
Yeah it’s like people being frightened by zombies or mummies.
If you can’t out-run, out-walk, out-shuffle or out-limp a zombie or a mummy you don’t deserve to survive anyway.
It’s not even measurable — it’s way within the error of the thermometers.
For a Green it is, no question.:D
Dr. Lindzen is a jewel.
Not much comes close to the dangers of climate propaganda and indoctrination of children in schools.
Some are hobbled by the generated anxiety needing counselling – a measurable harm
psychiatric dysphoria
Along with Teacher’s Union Sexual dysphoria training the kids in government schools today are really blessed.
The incredibly variable but stable blue marble. Go green, emit.
The entirely modest and rational Judith Curry lost her cool recently and let fly at alarmists, saying that at last there’s a human induced effect of climate change. – millions of terrified children.
I watched that episode, and Bolt could not hold his disdain for the lawyers who were vetting allowing the interview to go ahead. It got delayed a bit but was obviously allowed.
Question is what would worry Sky news so much that they have to involve lawyers before letting Richard Lindzen speak?
Lawyers to judge if a retired scientist is lying? Dummies don’t usually get to be lawyers due to the built-in screening processes. It would be strange to be put in their position. I wonder how they feel about Bolt? I don’t know whether he’s also smart, though enough people would love to sit in his network news chair that it would be hard to imagine him not smart.
It would be strange to be a smart person swimming in that pool, daydreaming Francis Bacon “Truth? What is truth?”
“Dummies don’t usually get to be lawyers due to the built-in screening processes” left off the /sarcasm tag
The inevitable attacks by well funded Eco-Nazis.
”Climate change isn’t ‘particularly dangerous’:”
Climate change isn’t particularly happening.
Climate change is the biggest fraud ever attempted that the world has ever seen.
I met John Maunder a New Zealander in 1990 and he had attended the very first climate meeting in Villach in Austria .
He was a climate scientist and he also represented New Zealand at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in Brazil.
I learnt a lot from him and he was well aware that members of the UN seized on climate change as a weapon to advance their ideology of one world government.
It is all well documented but unfortunately there are also many crooked scientists (which is also well documented, Michael Mann and the English university emails ).
Some of these people might really believe that climate change is a threat but they are useful idiots pushing a false story.
No scientists have proven that the worlds current temperature is higher than the three climate optimums in the last 12 thousand years .
The Medieval Warm Period just 1000 years ago was much warmer than present and has been proven to have been global,but many scientist were claiming it only warmed the Northern Hemisphere.
The proof that it was warmer is that the Vikings farmed in Greenland ,leaving there with the onset of the little Ice Age .
It is still not farmed to the extent that the Vikings farmed 800 years ago.
The theory of global warming rely’s on the tropical hotspot which has never been found despite many satellites circling the world measuring temperature .
As Richard Lindzen stated western countries will wreck their countries economies trying to become carbon neutral when many Asian countries are increasing their use of fossil fuel.
Don’t let the UN dupe us when world coal production has increased from a steady 4.7 billion tonnes from 1999 to 2008 to now exceed 8 billion tonnes .
How long will it take for the worlds population to wake up that this is all a mighty scam ?
“No scientists have proven that the worlds current temperature is higher than the three climate optimums in the last 12 thousand years .”
Ummm yes they have https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
Seriously Graham I am embarrassed to call myself a kiwi after your lame boring rants….. “he was well aware that members of the UN seized on climate change as a weapon to advance their ideology of one world government.” Cut it out, You sound like a Pizzagate looney.
I know that I am wasting my time even replying to your infantile post Simon.
I can see that you have swallowed the climate change fairy tale probably on your first day at school.
That university study is a fraud .
Well here’s your chance Graham. Provide a peer reviewed study that refutes my study. I’ll wait with anticipation. But I predict you will do one of three things.
Simon I do not have to come up with a fake article and if that rubbish that you posted above was peer reviewed how much did the peer reviewers get paid ? It is an absolute disgrace to the scientific community .
1 It does not show the three climate optimums since the last major ice age which were all warmer than the present climate.
2 The Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850 was a period of widespread cooling when global temperatures DROPPED by as much as 2 degrees Celsius, which is blatantly missing from the graph.
3 This crap study that you posted is on a par or even worse than Mann,s infamous hockey stick which has been well proven to be fraudulent .
4 We are having a debate here and all you can do when evidence is put in front of you ( that is not a fake rubbish bin study ) you call Graemethecat a plonker .
I will let the readers decide who the plonker is .
5 Simon has 12 down votes .
Graham has 26 up votes.
6 You just might learn something about the climate if you read some of these articles with an open mind .
Ok so you got nothing and I mean nothing to back up your nonsense. No data, no references, no studies….. except to say I don’t believe it. Well done that man. It’s a free world say all you want, but please don’t declare you are a Kiwi… it’s embarrassing.
Graham…. looks like you invented another option… talk rubbish with no evidence. And… as has been said many times here…. science is not a popularity contest. I am actually heartened by how many of the climate science deniers here vote me down. If you need any more evidence of their bias, look how many voted your nonsense … that says absolutely nothing… up.
Why do you even bother? One photograph suffices to destroy your article:
not sure why anyone get that post a negative so I gave it a positive
Simon probably downvoted my post. He’s too much of a coward to come back and try to rebut it.
probably because that photo is such powerful evidence of past warming, the climatistas hate it
What a plonker you are. Keep hugging that tree.
If you love trees so much why are you so upset by MM use of tree rings that trumps your tree by a magnitude of 100.
You got a link to your tree stump that provides more information. I’m curious about it. Google doesn’t seem to know about it
Try this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2562749
This was literally the third answer Google provided. Useless troll Simon doesn’t even know how to use Google.
Ok so where is your tree? I mean you threw it out there like it was some biblical assurance statement. I don’t see any reference to your log of wood. You got one? I’m looking for a photo of your stump and and the article that says it ends all discussion on climate change. That’s reasonable isn’t it?
The tree is at 67 deg 7 min North 133 deg 16 min West on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in the far Northwest of Canada.
It has clearly never occurred to you that physical objects have a reality independent of Google.
Come on Graeme where is your famous tree article? What… you don’t have one? What a surprise.
Do you dispute the existence of this tree?
Meanwhile, here’s a link to a story about trees found under glaciers: https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/alaska/ancient-forest-mendenhall-glacier-ak/
Even with your puny intellect you should be able to deduce that the climate at the time those trees were growing was warmer than today.
“Do you dispute the existence of this tree?”
I do until I see an article that expands on what you are trying to say. Why is it there is no further information do you think? If it is the smoking gun that settles climate change once and for all, why has no one looked further in to this concept. I think you will find it is because it is a bunch on nonsense, something your team has trouble filtering.
“Even with your puny intellect you should be able to deduce that the climate at the time those trees were growing was warmer than today.”
Well see it’s like this…. glaciers all over the world are retreating at a fast clip. While there has been the odd one throw up puzzles like this, all the others show we are now at our warmest for quite some time. I’m sure the local climate scientists would have an explanation for why these trees have been found(or maybe it is still a puzzle). It is interesting that the article you sited made no attempt to say their existence was proof that the world was warmer back then.
Simon opines: Well see it’s like this…. glaciers all over the world are retreating at a fast clip. While there has been the odd one throw up puzzles like this, all the others show we are now at our warmest for quite some time.
Missing the point, which is the existence of epochs warmer than today, such as the Holocene Thermal Optimum.
Here it is:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/latequaternary-vegetation-and-climate-near-the-arctic-tree-line-of-northwestern-north-america/3CD9A82242E6D90FF3AF8F8D935EA44B
What those maps show is the extent of the ice sheet from the last glacial period. Stop at 24,000 ybp because every 6000 year prior (back 12 more cycles) map would mimic the 24,000Y map.
What those “Maps” do show is how we will be affected at the beginning of the next glaciation cycle…soon
Crop growth potential leaving much of North America and Europe
It will also lead to a drop in CO2 levels to around 180-200ppm also affecting crop growth.
Simon writes “Ummm yes they have https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html”
That graph reeks of bad proxy selection. Its lost all its known recent climate variability.
The Californian Tulare Lake, drought-out 80 years before may refill now because of, what else, CC and the resulting massive rainfalls.
Drying-out wasn’t CC, or refilling isn’t CC, or both, in both directions, what’s true ?
The fear of climate change is the first step on the road to totalitarianism.
The actual climate change has been pleasant
The fear of future climate change has been very harmful.
Climate Realists must differentiate between actual, pleasant climate change (data) and future climate change propaganda (data-free predictions).
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Friday Morning Climate Rap:: Debating climate science has not worked for 40 years
My favorite Lindzen quote:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Richard Lindzen
I think the quote is from 2011
I can’t wait for TheFinalNull to go berserk about this quote
so I watched the video on the YouTube site since I wanted to see the comments there- and as I suspected, most attacked Lindzen in typically stupid ways- not actually commenting on his ideas but saying things like, “many climate scientists don’t agree with him” and “he’s a shill for the fossil fuel industry” and “he once said cigaretts don’t cause cancer”. To the last I responded, “medicine is not his expertise so he has a right to make a mistake on that subject which doesn’t prove his climate research is faulty”
..and likely the poster confused Lindzen with Singer.
Further, if I remember, Singer performed a a statistical study of data on 2nd hand smoke which indicated the harm from 2nd hand smoke was less than the alarmists claimed. He never claimed smoking doesn’t “cause cancer”.
I mention this only because if I am correct it would be a great example of how alarmist nonsense gets distorted when passed along, like the old “telephone game”.
makes sense that 2nd hand smoke wouldn’t be nearly as bad as inhaling from a cigarette as the concentration must be several orders of magnitude less- kinda like a “contact high” from a friend smoking a joint- you’ll get something but not a great deal 🙂
good to know the context next time I see that comeback against Lindzen- I’ve watched him in several videos and always like the guy- he comes across as both extremely smart and with a pleasant personality
Oreskes’ decades long attempts to tie climate “denial” to tobacco “denial” prompted my assumption of the possible mixup.
Regardless, determining the level of harm re second hand smoke is a great example of the distortion caused by applying the completely unscientific Linear No Lower Threshold rule of thumb.
The obvious comeback is “Show me the bodies”.
GISS-absolute-data-scale100F-1.png (1072×651) (wp.com)