Richard Lindzen On Climate Science: “The Field Is Corrupt – Without Any Question.”

From 2009, a good refresher – especially if you haven’t seen it yet. Yes it’s a scam.

“The field is corrupt, without any question. I would say most scientists don’t believe this and didn’t believe it 20 years ago. But the young scientists know they have trouble if they say it, and so they don’t.”

Nothing has changed in 3 years. Still corrupt as hell.


11 thoughts on “Richard Lindzen On Climate Science: “The Field Is Corrupt – Without Any Question.””

  1. May I paraphrase this as follows? The young scientists knew they had trouble if they said it, and so they gave us Climategate.

  2. That’s a real possibility. It is so, so sad what the governments of the west are doing to science.

  3. Yes…what a scam. Those fake high record temperatures in the US last year. The fake record high temperatures in Australia this year. The fake record high temperatures in Russia in 2010. The fake disappearing of the Arctic ice sheet. The fake increased melting of Greenland.

    Those alarmists will do ANYTHING to fake this stuff. Next thing they will do is to say that temperatures in Minnesotta will rise by 5 degrees by 2050. Those darn fakers make me so mad!!

    1. You forgot to mention that global temperatures have not gone up in 15 years and that this will go on more years. And you forgot to mention the record sea ice in Antarctica, and record cold in Russia, China, Pakistan…and that global temps today are no higher than they were 1000 years ago…etc.

    2. JC Smith, during severe solar minima the jetstream gets more meridonal and loopy – resulting in stable weather patterns in one place, one region being very hot, an adjacent region being very cold.

      A few years back Russia had a blocking high with high temperatures and wildfires around Moscow. Alarmists wetted their pants for weeks. Now that Russia has a record cold winter, you point to other areas.

      You should try to understand the concept of blocking weather patterns.

      Are you stupid or do you deliberately try to deveice?

    3. JC,
      The high temperature records are fake. Numerous people have demonstrated that: including Steve Goddard, Paul Homewood, and myself, among others. They are caused by improper “adjustments”, and failure to account properly for urban heat islands. The melting in the Arctic, including Greenland, is not fake, but it isn’t due to AGW; it’s due largely to soot and dust, primarily from Asia, and secondarily to ocean currents and wind pattern cyclic changes.

  4. The politicisation of science has a long history – starting with geology in the UK during the early 19th century for our present dilemma.

    1. Absolutely right.
      Today politicians routinely cite science to support the urgent need for their pet projects. That science of course having been bought and paid for earlier (with our tax dollars) by the very same politicians. There’s no money for “inconvenient” science. Climate science is truly bought by governments and the UN. One could argue that the many climate institutes are houses of climate whores. I think Hansen is the mother of climate whores, if I may be so bold.

      1. And for some reason, the Hadley House is not cooperating and performing the tricks it’s expected to render. Expect the pimps to come down hard soon. I can’t imagine the gnashing of teeth that Hadley is causing among the many climate pimps.

        PS; in case some people choose to be offended, I’m using the third definition provided here:
        “3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.”

      2. There were times before in history were scientists supported crazy crackpot politicians. They didn’t produce scientific results anymore, though. German science went down the tube 1933-1945. They weren’t even able to finish their nuclear bomb.

  5. Hansen isn’t so much that has delusional – well, maybe a less strong term should be used, but his belief in the runaway greenhouse effect comes from his PhD on that topic pertaining to Venus. Carl Sagan invoked that effect to counter Velikovsky’s interpretation of ancient history that Venus was hot because it was a young planet; Sagan won the argument, and Hansen the built on it.

    What I am uncertain of is whether the Sagan explanation logical led to the Green belief in the CO2 effect, or whether it was used as a mechanism for political purposes by the people who went to the 1975 AAAS conference on the endangered atmosphere held by the late Margaret Mead in the US. and at which Schneider, Holdren etc attended.

Comments are closed.