Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as “a joke”. According to Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, “it is pal review, not peer review”. The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science. “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they state.
No reliable scientific evidence can be provided either by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they say, which is “government-controlled and only issues government dictated findings”. The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments. In their opinion, these summaries are “merely government opinions”. They refer to the recent comments on climate models by the atmospheric science professor John Christy from the University of Alabama, who says that, in his view, recent climate model predictions “fail miserably to predict reality”, making them “inappropriate” to use in predicting future climate changes.
The ’miserable failure’ is graphically displayed below. Since the observations cut-off, global temperatures have again paused.
Particular scorn is poured on global surface temperature datasets. Happer and Lindzen draw attention to a 2017 paper by Dr. James Wallace and others that elaborated on how over the last several decades, “NASA and NOAA have been fabricating temperature data to argue that rising CO2 levels have led to the hottest year on record”. The false and manipulated data are said to be an “egregious violation of scientific method”. The Wallace authors also looked at the Met Office HadCRUT database and found all three surface datasets made large historical adjustments and removed cyclical temperature patterns. This was “totally inconsistent” with other temperature data, including satellites and meteorological balloons, they said. Readers will recall that the Daily Sceptic has reported extensively on these issues of late and has attracted a number of somewhat footling ‘fact checks’.
Happer and Lindzen summarise: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence marshalled in support of the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.”
Professors Happer and Lindzen’s comments are included in a submission to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is seeking to impose massive and onerous ‘climate change’ reporting requirements on public companies. But they form part of a wider scientific revolt by many scientists alarmed at the corruption of science to promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Needless to say, these debates are largely ignored by mainstream media. Opponents of Net Zero politicised science are denounced as ‘cranks’ and ‘deniers’, labels at odds with their distinguished scientific achievements. Between them, Happer from Princeton and Lindzen from MIT have around 100 years of involvement in atmospheric science. Richard Lindzen was an early lead author for the IPCC, while William Happer was responsible for a groundbreaking invention that corrected the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence on imaging resolution.
In their submission, Happer and Lindzen supply a basic lesson in science: “Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinions or manipulated data”.
In the U.K., it will be interesting to see if Net Zero will feature as a major issue in the battle to find a new Prime Minister. At the moment, candidates seem to be steering a widish berth – something that can happen with virtuous green policies when actual votes are at stake. Happer and Lindzen state firmly that “science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and therefore no reliable scientific evidence supporting the proposed rule”. The rule in this case refers to the SEC climate requirement, but it could equally apply to Net Zero. Many people now accept that a rigid Net Zero policy will lead to massive falls in living standards that will disproportionately affect the poorer in society, both in the U.K. and particularly in the developing world. Contrary to the incessant attack on fossil fuels, write Happer and Lindzen, “affordable, abundant fossil fuels have given ordinary people the sort of freedom, prosperity and health that were reserved for kings in ages past”.
Such prosperity, of course, has left the building in the case of Sri Lanka, where the prospect of famine and civil breakdown face 22 million people following (among other things) the decision of the Government to ban fertiliser in the interests of climate change and saving the planet. Such a collapse, with the President hastily fleeing the country, is likely to face any modern Net Zero society that seeks to tamper with reliable and affordable energy supply, restrict diet and try to grow enough food using ‘organic’ methods. Happer and Lindzen state that reducing CO2 and the use of fossil fuels would have “disastrous consequences” for the poor, people worldwide and future generations.
Both Happer and Lindzen have long held out against the current demonisation of atmospheric CO2, pointing out that the current 415 parts per million (ppm) is near a record low and not dangerously high. They note that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data “contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming”. Omitting unfavourable data is an egregious violation of scientific method. Facts omitted by those who argue there is a climate emergency include that CO2 levels were over 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years and have been as high as over 7,000 ppm; CO2 has been declining for 180 million years from about 2,800 ppm to today’s low; and today’s low is not far above the minimum level when plants die of CO2 starvation, leading to all other life forms perishing for lack of food.
Finally, the authors note that the logarithmic influence of CO2 means its contribution to global warming is “heavily saturated”. The scientists calculate that a doubling of current CO2 levels would only reduce the heat escaping to space by about 1.1%. This suggests warming of around 1°C or less. The saturation hypothesis explains, they say, the disconnect between CO2 and temperature observed over 600 million years.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This article has cheered me up this evening. At last! Common sense! Seeing what has been going on in Sri Lanka, I did wonder (hope) that something similar would happen here if the government continues with net zero madness. I just hope more and more scientists pin their colours to the mast and we can move on from the craziness. It’s a steep hill to climb though – the terrible twin peaks of climate change and covidism.
Don’t forget to add in Billy Gates and the Davos Deviants with Klaus Schwab and Charlie Windsor at the head of “The Great Reset.”
Along with and in no particular order, Carnage Carney, the UN, IMF, World Bank, Blackrock, Vanguard, all US Democrats, the Tri-lateral Commission, the Vatican and particularly the Pope, the murderous Bliar, Jabbit, Sunak, Bozo, Handicock, all Pharma heads,WWF, Fauci, Welby, Michie Whitty, Raine, CDC, MHRA, Teaching unions, the Labour Party and in particular Kneel and Ranting….et al.
With apologies to all those criminals and criminal organisations not mentioned – there’s just too many of you.
BlackRock, yes, but not Vanguard. Rob Kapito is a total jackass. Jack Bogle (RIP) on the other hand was a personal hero of mine. I can’t think of anyone who has done more for the average investor. Mocked by the industry for his passive approach to index investing since 1975, the shoe is now on the other foot.
What on Earth are you talking about. The Great Reset is just a conspiracy theory and here’s Nicole Kidman showing us how to eat bugs.
You’re confusing some people’s desire to market certain products and/or to remain well-connected to the political class for effective lobbying in one’s own commercial interest with exercising control. Or rather, the internet infantry of the party which is currently not ruling the USA made you confuse this.
I see that the Dutch government are attacking that country’s farmers. (I believe the climate scare comes into it somewhere but) just to be clear, is there any possible benign explanation for this? My own gut feeling is that they have done this because they are, more or less, treacherous scumbags.
What they reportedly want to do is drive livestock farmers out of business with the help of sufficiently low animal farts quotas. In other words, they want to make make their countries more dependent on food imported from regions of the world where their regulations aren’t in force and harm local rural populations for a global net effect of nothing at all. Technically, they are treacherous scumbags, as they’re working against the people of their own country. But doubtlessly, they’re just stupid people with a knack for becoming popular with the right minority of other people to get elected who prefer to outsource political decisions to globally renowned experts to hide the fact that they’re out of their depth wrt actually governing a country.
“Animal farts quotas”.
What strange times we live in (and at a time of (engineered) global food scarcity).
Are they still doing the carbon trading scam then?
“a time of (engineered) global food scarcity).”
No doubt.
Michael Schellenberg makes the case in his book “Apocalypse Never” that the world could very easily feed itself. The problem is not production, it is circulation i.e getting the food to those in need.
What Mark Rutte is doing in Holland is promoting a depopulation program. There can be no other explanation for his actions. Still Klaus is pleased and is lauding Rutte as a Hero of the Reset (Second Class obvs).
Cutting nitrogen use in a country the size of Holland will improve the world’s climate? That is barking mad even by today’s Orwellian standards.
“Getting the food to those in need”.
A similar story with Ethiopia and the Band Aid scam. Or so I heard.
The political system which begets such nonsense could be described as democracy big brother.
I expect these two to get the same warm reception as the three promoters of the Great Barrington Declaration received.
They probably know what they are doing, but I wish them all the luck in rhe world facing the tsunami of abuse coming their way.
It is heartening to see people in positions of influence put their necks on the line. The abuse they will doubtless receive will be gratuitously unpleasant.
I salute them.
What a meaningless thing “global average surface temperature” truly is.
Who the hell came up with that garbage?
I’ve got it – a scientist working for ‘The Science.’
Wasn’t there another “highest temperature in Britain” from Heathrow again recently?
“We’re doomed Hugh. All doomed.”
“”May I be excused?”… (apologies to those who don’t watch Dad’s Army).
Oh so true. Here in Thailand it is now 28C, however in Dubai it regularly hits 45 and above.
In the 80’s I lived in Iraq, it was regularly 50C in the shade – could have been hotter but the thermometer we had only went up to 50C.
Thanks to the Daily Sceptic for publicising this. If only it could get wider coverage and sway public opinion but the MSM have a stranglehold on the “facts”.
They sure do.
The owners of the world own the pharma companies, they own the media, they own the tech companies, they own the governments. They own nearly everything and they deploy all their power to try to get their hands on the stuff they still don’t own. Like Russian natural resources.
Not really my observation, but George Carlin’s from many years ago.
Does anyone have a link that works to the Lindzen and Happer paper please?
The climate does change. And it’s not the CO2, it’s the cyclicality that’s to blame. Check out the international online forum
GLOBAL CRISIS. WE ARE PEOPLE. WE WANT TO LIVE. People from 180 countries are already raising this issue. And they’re talking about a way out of the climate crisis. It’s about all the people of the planet.