Richard Lindzen In Mannheim, Germany Portrays IPCC Climate Models As Fudged…Extreme Weather Claims “Pure Propaganda”

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has posted a video of Richard Lindzen’s presentation delivered at the 7th International Climate and Energy Conference in Mannheim, Germany in April.

Overall Lindzen slams the IPCC models, claiming they act like they have everything all figured out, when in reality they do not. On ocean cycles and their important interaction with the atmosphere, Lindzen says at the 23.00 min. mark: “No models gets those things in a reasonable manner.”

The IPCC also appears to be only guessing with aerosols, and tends to fudge around with the numbers involving aerosols. On natural variability, at the 37:40 mark, Lindzen mentions a PNAS 2013 paper by Tung and Zhou who find that at least half of the warming is likely due to natural factors.

Lindzen ridicules the UN climate view its models, the ones near the center of the range and the bad outlier ones: “In the democratic processes of the UN, all models are equal.”

On extreme weather, at the end of his presentation, Lindzen calls the science surrounding it”one of the crazier things”.

Extreme weather is pure propaganda. The IPCC itself acknowledges no relation.”

At the end he reminds the audience that many things in the IPCC actually argue against the hysteria. This naturally leads us to assume these things have gotten filtered out of the Summary for Policymakers and press releases, and thus the public has gotten the wrong picture.

Also posted at EIKE is the presentation by Donna Laframboise.


10 responses to “Richard Lindzen In Mannheim, Germany Portrays IPCC Climate Models As Fudged…Extreme Weather Claims “Pure Propaganda””

  1. Stephen Richards

    Great talk from Dr Lindzen. The best I have seen of his. Shame it didn’t show all of it.

    Thanks Pierre.

  2. Bjorn Ramstad

    Thanks anyhow, sir.

  3. George B

    What I find very infuriating is something Ms. Laframboise points out at about 15 minutes into her presentation but does not fully develop. The IPCC is engaging in a sort of Orwellian rhetoric that I have found typical of the “progressive” mindset. In saying that the IPCC, indeed the world, “must bequeath to future generations” they imply that they are giving something to future generations when in actuality they are doing exactly the opposite. All of these policies and projects and subsidies come at great expense. Governments are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars that future generations are going to have to repay. The IPCC are not advocating that anything be given to future generations, they are enabling the robbery of the earnings of future generations and attempting to make it look like exactly the opposite is happening.

    Down is up, up is down, stealing is giving to these people. The entire “Global Warming” issue has, in my opinion, been the greatest robbery of the world population ever perpetrated in the history of mankind.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Excellent point!

    2. John F. Hultquist

      They know who you are and your re-education program is being prepared. There will be a knock on your door in 3, 2, 1 . . .

  4. B. A. Stockwell

    What great presentations, comments here! I get so discouraged as the total nonsense of catastrophic global warming wrecks our world economies and, indeed, lays unmanageable burdens on future generations. Thank you for publishing common sense.

  5. oebele bruinsma

    Both excellent presentations, thanks. Slowly the orwellian dimensions of this large scale fraud are becoming clearer. It is highly interesting to see when this development and the stagnant or cooling temperature trend lines merge.

  6. George B

    Also note in that IPCC statement shared at 15 minutes into the video the phrase “and that means properly understanding the information published by the IPCC”. Again, this is a subtle propaganda instrument meant to convey the message that if you disagree, then you don’t “properly understand”. It isn’t their fault for being incorrect, you are at fault for not “properly understanding” because if you did “properly understand” then you would certainly agree. It provides a lever to launch the notion that people who disagree are dullards or “flat earthers” who “just don’t understand”.


  7. BobW in NC

    As a former parasitologist, I would not want to work with the “fudge” the IPCC offers without adequate ventilation and personal biohazard protection…


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy