Money is partly to blame for the global warming hysteria, Professor Richard Lindzen says
This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-andgloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.
Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?
A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.
Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?
A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.
Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?
A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.
Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?
A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.
Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?
A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.
Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?
A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.
Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?
A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.
Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?
A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.
If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.
Q Did you watch Al Gore ge this Academy Award?
A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.
Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.
A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.
Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
A Well, he's dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.
Q How cynical do you think Gore is?
A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.
Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.
A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.
Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?
A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.
Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"
A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.
Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?
A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy.
For more news and commentary on the environment, visit www.nationalpost.com/ environment
Subject: Relax, the Planet is Fine
Date: Tue, April 1, 2008
Here is the response I wrote to "Relax, the Planet is Fine" (Exposing the Global
Warming Hoax) April 1, 2008:
To Linda Frum:
Just a comment:
Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in
good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has
improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a
reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger."
The issue is not global warming. The real issue -- "the Earth is NOT in such good
shape" -- is global poisoning, with petroleum the single largest contributor to
that. Petroleum is a substance poisonous to all the biological life of this planet.
Everything MADE from petroleum is also poisonous. All the billions of internal
combustion engine vehicles burning petroleum are one source of poisoning,
particularly of our air. Our air quality is NOT better. Everywhere we go, we breathe
petrocarbon compounds -- poisons. Add to that the massive chemtrail programs going
on all over the world, which no governmental agency will acknowledge responsibility
for. However, we know from independent sources that they contain aluminum and barium
at least, two metals poisonous to biological life, with aluminum being associated
with Alzheimer's disease.
The second, and LARGER use of petroleum is industrial chemicals, all of which are
poisonous to biological life. Over 75,000 industrial chemicals are registered with
the US EPA. Many more are not registered. At least 4,000 of those are directly
derived from petroleum. Even more are indirectly derived. There are whole chains of
interconnected and interdependent chemical processes built from petroleum -- every
one of them poisonous. All plastics -- a petroleum product -- are poisonous in their
manufacture and many in their use, with all the outgassing issues associated with
them, not to mention their enormous environmental impact from lack of
biodegradability. We should stop making plastics NOW.
Our children are being born poisoned. An extensive study in 2004 showed 287
unnatural manmade chemicals -- poisons -- in the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies
born in US hospitals. All of us, this very moment, have up to 90 identifiable
unnatural manmade chemicals in our blood, not one of which contributes to health.
Globalization of industry, carrying with it this same heavy dependence on poisonous
compounds has merely spread this poisoning to industrially undeveloped countries
which are now poisoning their air and water. Globalization of industry has not
created greater prosperity. It has created greater ill health.
Water quality has not improved. Note the recent revelation of pharmaceutical
residues in our water supplies with various ill effects on our health. There are
many more chemical residues in our water, including fertilizer runoff, pesticide
residues, and industrial chemicals. In the US there is no groundwater east of the
Rocky Mountains that is safe to drink. This is not an improvement!
We grow more food on less land -- but only by the use of artificial fertilizers and
heavy doses of pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides -- poisons -- the vast
majority of them derived from petroleum. One might ask what is gained by growing
more food on less land when that food is poisoned with pesticide residues. GM crops
are developed to have a higher tolerance to pesticides, so that the plant doesn't
die. What this means is that the plant merely absorbs a greater dose of pesticide,
which humans then ingest. Net gain? Governments all over the world should mandate
that all foods be grown organically, and get rid of the poisons that persist and
accumulate in human tissue, particularly fat. The Inuit have the highest
concentration of Dioxin per person in the world, and they don't live in a heavily
industrialized area of the globe! What does this tell you? Globalized poisons
travel. We should stop using them NOW.
Mr. Lindzen only addressed global warming, a phenomenon that may be a natural cycle
on this planet, and part of a solar-system wide warming trend for which there is
evidence. Man's greenhouse gas contributions are, however, real, and may contribute
a small portion to global heating -- but more importantly, those gasses and all
unnatural, manmade industrial chemicals contribute to us poisoning ourselves. This
needs to change NOW. If the poisoning issue is addressed, any global warming issues
contributed by humans will also be addressed because they have the same human source
-- chemicals that are alien to the biological life of this planet.
The very disturbing and frustrating part of this is that I, personally, don't see
any change in any of this, even though most of the facts have been known for over 60
years. Instead, ever more aggressive claiming of oil fields goes on, indicating that
there is no plan to discontinue the use of this very poisonous substance. How, then,
can the Earth be in good shape? It's not.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.