MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen rejects ‘climate change’ as ‘a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd ‘scientific’ narrative’

Posted: December 4, 2022 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, Energy, Temperature
Tags: , ,

Dr. Lindzen – a long-time critic of IPCC-sponsored climate theories – argues, among other things, that ‘Changes in mean temperature are primarily due to changes in the tropic-to-pole difference, and not to changes in the greenhouse effect.’ Unfortunately decades at the forefront of climate research don’t count with some people unless you’re making the right alarmist noises.

H/T Climate Depot
– – –
Dr. Richard Lindzen’s new paper: An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative. – Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation – September 22, 2022:

Climate change is “a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd ‘scientific’ narrative. The policies invoked on behalf of this movement have led to the US hobbling its energy system.” –

“The Earth’s climate has, indeed, undergone major variations, but these offer no evidence of a causal role for CO₂.”

“Unless we wake up to the absurdity of the motivating narrative, this is likely only to be the beginning of the disasters that will follow from the current irrational demonization of CO₂.”

Source here.

  1. Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. says:

    It’s interesting to see Richard Lindzen denouncing the role of CO2 as a driver of climate with an explicit statement in his latest paper:

    The Earth’s climate has, indeed, undergone major variations, but these offer no evidence of a causal role for CO₂.

    I fully agree, since the geological records support this conclusion:

    However, I wonder, if Lindzen still believes in the radiative “greenhouse effect”? He is certainly aware of our research & discovery (Nikolov & Zeller 2017). About 5-6 years ago, when I tried to engage him in a conversation about the adiabatic (pressure-induced) nature of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect, he was quite unreceptive, and emailed me some references on atmospheric radiative transfer with an advice to educate myself… Judging by the above statement, his views may have evolved since then, and he may no longer think that the IR back radiation affects Earth’s global temperature. I’d be very happy if this were the case…

  2. oldbrew says:

    RL says:

    Adding an infrared absorbing gas (i.e. a greenhouse gas) elevates the characteristic emission level and, because of convection, this level is colder than 255K. In order to re-establish equilibrium with net incoming radiation, it must be warmed back to 255 K, thus raising the temperature of the entire atmosphere below this level. This is the essence of the so-called greenhouse effect. It is illustrated in Figure 2.

    While the effect is commonly attributed to Arrhenius and even Fourier, this is inaccurate. Those earlier scientists recognised that certain gases absorb thermal radiation, but they did not understand the role of convection.

    He then says ‘The one-dimensional approach does provide some insights’
    ‘as we will see, it is fundamentally inadequate for describing the Earth’s complex three-dimensional nature.’

  3. Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. says:


    It sounds like Richard Lindzen repeats in his recent paper the thermodynamically nonsensical idea about IR-absorbing gases raising the effective emission level of outgoing LW radiation in the troposphere that was proposed as a conjecture (based on no data!) by Nils Ekholm in 1901. I discuss this ridiculous concept in details in my video “Demystifying the Greenhouse Effect” (starting at 19:56 min) and show through math that it has no support in modern atmospheric physics! The “emission level” concept is an example of a silly idea becoming “established science” through mere repetition by generations of researchers over decades without a shred of observational evidence to validate it!

  4. oldbrew says:

    Pacific problems for climate models
    Tuesday 29th November 2022

    State-of-the-art climate models generally predict that the Walker circulation will weaken bringing enhanced warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific and warming in the Southern Ocean, contrary to what is observed.
    . . .
    What this research points to is a failing of climate models in this vital region indicating a huge source of uncertainty in multi-decadal projections of regional and global climate.
    [bold added]

    Settled climate science sinks further into the mire.

  5. Eric says:

    Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s