Top MIT Scientist: Global Warming Science Is ‘Propaganda’

Leading MIT climate change scientist says man-made global warming science is propaganda

A leading MIT scientist claims that global warming science is based on pure propaganda, and that the “97 percent consensus” statistic is false. 

According to Dr. Richard Lindzen, most scientists do not agree that CO2 emissions are the cause for climate change.

Dailycaller.com reports: “It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”

“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. “So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” he added.

Lindzen if referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.

A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.

“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” wrote Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”

Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians used the figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited the Cook paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” Obama said in 2013, announcing his new global warming plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

Lindzen disagreed with politicians who cite Cook’s paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it’s part of a political machine that’s used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.

“If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?” Lindzen said.

“If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works,” he said.

  • JoeBloe

    Who better to discredit decades of validated scientific work work than conscripting the support of a so-called ‘leading/top’ scientist..

    • Vinsanity76

      Dissenting voices are often mocked. Yet our history is painted with the discoveries of those who disagreed with the “validated science” and dug further.

      • JoeBloe

        I completely agree. Such notable scientists who were dismissed as crazy in their time include William Harvey, Gregor Mendel, William B. Coley, Francis Peyton Rous…even Albert Einstein. However, this is not such a case. We are unfortunately living in the most prolific period in human history from the position of the sheer volume of disinformation, deception and clandestine activity. We have never had to deal with such immense levels of social engineering and desperate thought control ever. Science is filled with narcissistic ‘professors’ that crave nothing but the limelight. This might not be one of them, however his thesis is utterly wrong and dangerous.

        • General Apathy

          “his thesis is utterly wrong and dangerous.”
          And your evidence of this is what? Or are we suppose to just take your word for it over his science?

          • JoeBloe

            As a fellow scientist in the arenas of environmental and biochemical sciences, I have read his treatise and simply do not have the time nor space to ramble on regarding it’s countless flaws. Do your own research.

          • James D. Schielein

            Hmmmm, as a commentator that claims nothing is reliable on social media, and then who offers no backup to your criticism of Lindzen except for some vague explanation as a ‘fellow scientist ‘ I call your kettle is black.

            Be specific in your call outs or troll shall you be called.

          • JoeBloe

            You do of course realise that we are having a ‘discussion’ on a backwater bullshit ‘news’ site that practically has absolutely zero credibility of any description? Right? I am not beholden to anyone as I have several publications and a book chapter already out there. I just come here for my daily dose of crazy.

          • General Apathy

            ” I have read his treatise and simply do not have the time nor space to ramble on regarding it’s countless flaws.”
            A cop-out response. I seriously doubt you know anything about climate science. If you did you wouldn’t be pushing a fake narrative.

    • Ted Tedster

      Yeah, and who’s ever heard of MIT, anyways.
      Me, I listen to all of the “social scientists” who yell at the rallies – much more convincing.

      • JoeBloe

        Your blind conditioned response to a universities’ reputation and not the individual is part of the wonderful invention called social engineering. MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford… they are all still resting on their laurels. As an academic for the past 15 years and full professor, I have little tolerance to people who simply drink the kool-aid.

        • Ted Tedster

          It’s funny how you supported your criticism of one academic’s credentials by reciting your own. I guess your unnamed school’s reputation goes without saying – and so you didn’t. My kool-aid’s better than yours.

        • Ted Tedster

          My guess is that you didn’t study actual science, or you would have said so.

  • General Apathy

    ‘Decades of validated work’ LOL
    Someone is brainwashed. Dr. Richard Lindzen is correct here. CO2 does cause warming, but most of that is not man made. The Jurassic period had 5 times the CO2 levels we have today, yet there was no man around and no industry. So to say now is the time to panic is foolish and irresponsible. Instead of climate, we should be focusing on conservation and cleaner water. Throwing money at CO2 output is simply a waste.

    • Michael Hopkins

      Thank you! Climate Change is natural. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be good stewards. We only have so many resources. But there is no reason to lie about it to people. Just to get Grant money. Isn’t that why they started calling it Climate Change?

    • joy

      High CO2 levels during the Jurassic Period was due to subduction, or volcanism at the surface of the earth, with rocks constantly melting and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. Huge amounts of this greenhouse gas made the climate during the Jurassic Period extremely humid and warm. Using this extremely volatile time period to create a comparison to todays CO2 levels is misleading.

      • General Apathy

        Its not at all misleading. What’s misleading is telling people that man is causing global warming. that is a huge lie. One that has made people like Gore millions. Earthquakes release CO2, as do volcanoes. We still have both, that hasn’t changed. A rotting tree branch creates CO2. You credit man with too much power. CO2 is a life essential gas which is why the Jurrasic period had much greater diversity of life then the earth has now. The entire Mesozoic period is proof that man has very little to do with CO2 output. There is also 20 years of satellite data that proves that man has extremely little to do with climate change.

        So much money and time wasted on CO2 based climate change. What we need is focus on environment, not climate change. We need to stop big cities dumping their human waste into the oceans, plants outputting chemical wastes into our lakes and rivers. We need more fauna and flora wild life preserves. We need to stop producing nuclear waste that takes thousands of years to decay. We need the focus to be on basic environment issues, not climate issues. But it will never happen because there is no money in it like there is in fighting the fake climate change.

        But hey, don’t take my word for it, research it yourself. The climate change hoax has been exposed, you just have to inform yourself. the people making the money off of it will never tell you that.

        • Christopher

          Resources are limited. Fossil fuels WILL run out. Renewable energy is the best solution. You accuse Al Gore of propagating misinformation for millions, but don’t consider big oil propagating misinformation for BILLIONS or even TRILLIONS?

          “CO2 is a life essential gas which is why the Jurrasic period had much greater diversity of life then the earth has now.” That is a completely ridiculous assumption and shows how little you understand. You say cleaning up the environment “will never happen” but ignore people stripping away the protections we have set in place? It all goes hand in hand.

          “The climate change hoax has been exposed, you just have to inform yourself.” Just because you’re informed doesn’t mean you’re informed with the correct information.

  • Duke LaCrosse

    Duh

  • Jimmy

    It’s a transfer or wealth from the poor who can’t afford to the rich. Just another tax grab by the government and elites. Co2 is the basis of all life on this planet
    The more co2 we have the faster plant life will grow. Basic grade 7 biology. We need focus on pollution and deforestation. Less killing of each other and less war. More space exploration. Until all the fuck tards in power see that they are the cause of all our problems and not the solution we are all gonna die stupid!

    • Christopher

      CO2 is not the basis off all. It is necessary, but not what you make it out to be. 7th grade biology would tell you we can’t survive with too much CO2, and just because plant life thrives in it doesn’t mean humans do. And in terms of pollution and deforestation, the current administration has stripped away everything the EPA stands for. Also, renewable energy isn’t just about emissions either. There are so many environmental consequences with current energy sources, like mountain top removal, which is destroying the environment too.

  • jolenestc

    That’s not quite what Legates et al says. The authors found, in their review of Cook et al, of the abstracts expressing an opinion on human-caused climate effects, 1.59% gave “explicit, quantified endorsement.” Another 1.02% were “actually endorsing the standard definition upon inspection” (their definition of “consensus”). An additional 22.97% gave an “explicit, unquantified endorsement.” And a further 72.5% included an “implicit endorsement.” Overall, that is all told actually a 98.08 endorsement rate, implicit or explicit, in the abstracts expressing an opinion. In the abstracts. No telling what is in fact in the body of the articles. Legates et al want the only “consensus” to be “actually endorsing the standard definition upon inspection” in the abstract of the article. Interestingly, they found 64 abstracts with an “explicit, quantified endorsement” and 9 with an “explicit, quantified rejection.” They found 41 “actually endorsing the standard definition upon inspection” but 0 (zero) “actually rejecting the standard definition upon inspection.” In fact that’s not even included in their “endorsement level” table.
    http://www.wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf

    • Coccoon

      So, I wonder what the percentage of endorsements, whether implicit or explicit…I really don’t care, happened to be in the 70’s, when climatologists declared that the world was headed for another Ice Age.

      The point is, it is not a matter of consensus, or endorsements. They have been wrong before and we do not need to dramatically alter our lives according to fear based weather predictions.

      Scientists have been wrong before, they’ll be wrong again.

    • David J Timmons

      Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

  • pdullea

    Avenues of litigation will be established to go after the Climate Hoax grifters. Public Policy needs to be repaired due to the Climate Hoax damage and the tax payer needs to be compensated.

    • David Mulloy

      Agree with that 1000%!
      Most of those “Grifters” on US Soil are also guilty of Many other Crimes against the American Taxpayers!!

      • JosefineAnne

        The “grifters” are the oil and coal billionaires who would rather see men toil in the bowels of the earth and work in dangerous filthy oil fields to fill their bulging pockets rather than pursue clean energy jobs that will free men form dangerous work and provide a better living for everyone.

        • David Langley

          Shows how much you know. I bet those AGW propagandists love someone as gullible as you. What do you think BP spends pursuing green energy? Can you tell me who makes the most money on a gallon of gas sold in America?

        • RPVG

          Problem is, “clean energy” is nowhere NEAR as efficient as petroleum. It’s just WAY too expensive by comparison.

  • Mark Wallace

    “Lindzen if referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists…”

    *is

    …darn, I was going to link this article as a reference. Obvious lack of proofreading kind of ruins the credibility.

    • Victor Hill

      I, like the other senior member of this discussion remember when it was predicted that we should now be going through a mini Ice Age, but later researchers said that increased industrialisation was preventing it from happening, or in other words the world was saved from freezing by increasing the CO2 level. Since then some scientists have come forward and suggested that the original hypothesis was flawed. I also remember learning in school that the world actually warmed up about two degrees during the Second World War due to human activities, namely industrial production increases and burning cities. The biggest suspicion I have about global warming deniers is that their front men always seem to be extremist reactionaries rather then serious researchers. If the world is getting warmer it is probably because of all the rhetorical heat being generated. The simple answer is there is much we can all do to make our world a better place to live in.

  • Jim King

    I agree with this MIT research scientist. On your own, research or Google “Medieval Warm Period”, “Roman Warm Period” and the “Holocene climatic optimum”. These are recurring cycles of increased solar output that warm things up a bit, eventually followed by cooler climate. These cycles typically last for 300 to 3000 years. We are currently 100 years into a new warming cycle. These cycles have been occurring for eons and are very normal. Human contribution is minimal. the real culprit is the sun.

  • Ramond Ferreal

    It’s amazing how an agenda delivered at the right time can stop a human’s ability to reason.

    • bkp100

      However, it becomes clear, when that agenda means vast profits for the elite, and furthers the bigger agenda… Redistribution of wealth and power…

  • JosefineAnne

    Early dementia? Or is he just another whore being paid by the oil and coal industries?

  • jrjohnson

    I invite those doubting the harmful effects of too much atmospheric CO2 to pull a plastic bag over their heads, seal it with duct tape and report on the physical effects of their enriched CO2 atmosphere inside the bag.

    • raymar31

      Totally idiotic analogy. It’s the lack of oxygen that would be the overwhelming problem in your scenario but I think you already know that. Yet another liberal spinning the facts to try to prove a lie.

      • jrjohnson

        Rising CO2 concentrations equal falling oxygen concentrations. One displaces the other. Not rocket science.

        • Larry Brennan

          CO2 percentage about .04%. Doubling it to .08% would reduce O2 percentage by about .01%. I suspect that if you were in a space with that reduction you wouldn’t notice it. CO2 has to be well above .1% before you even begin to feel drowsy.

  • Jim

    If CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)causes global warming then we should all stop breathing since we all exhale carbon dioxide.

  • William Fuzi

    !00% of scientists agree with whoever is handing out the research money.

    • Sally Green

      I certainly don’t believe it is 100% of scientists. We have a lady scientist in Australia who has been trying for years to get a hearing with our federal politicians about our Bureau of Meteorology ‘homogenising’ the data from historical records, she eventually got a hearing, but nobody wanted to do anything. Here is a link to one of her posts, she has many on her site.
      http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17710

  • JohnSvengali

    When was climate EVER static?

  • Jay Darwin

    The Global Warming debate started with Al Gore and his misrepresentation of conditions identified during his college days…all for political reasons. This has become one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on our world all in the name of money and political expediency

  • Terry Petty

    99.9% of scientists will agree that the Greenhouse Gas effect does cause warming of the atmosphere. The theory and mechanics have been around almost 150 years – no challenge. You can duplicate in a lab. CO2 does cause warming. Even Lindzner, who is a litlle out of date and retired for a long time, will agree on the absorption of heat by Green house Gases in the Infrared range. It is a fact.

  • SCPDGEARHEAD

    The problem here is that the media is making a fortune on global warming and they have all the sheep believing the lies and half truths !

    • Rich Rochester

      There always was a large group of scientists, who to their credit still believed in accurate data and did not drink the climate change kool-aid. It’s just that the ever biased mainstream news orgs would not report it. Ignoring news that does not support their worldview is just one way they present inaccurate news. If it happens to be too large to ignore, then they simply spin it their way.

  • raymar31

    I would be willing to bet that all scientists understand that more CO2 comes out of one violent volcanic eruption than the last 50 years of all manmade emissions combined. But you’d probably have to pay most of them to admit it.

  • Rich Rochester

    Two former UN climate gurus, one male and one female, have both said several years ago that the climate change hysteria has nothing to do with the environment. It was a liberal construct with the aim of destroying capitalism by lying to the public in an effort to create a phony global crisis to usher in confiscatory taxation for the single purpose of the ultimate liberal wet dream – wealth redistribution and the end of capitalism. The jig is up! Dr. Lindzen is at least acknowledging some of the lying, propped up by their servile accomplices in the biased press.

  • NosyMary

    Lindzen is a member of the Cato Institute which throws his credentials right in the garbage. Check credentials before you comment, please.