Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University, have published 'PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING,EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM' More Carbon Dioxide Will Create More Food. Driving Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Net Zero and Eliminating Fossil Fuels Will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide.
"We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth's atmosphere. In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,”
"First, Scientific Evidence Ignored. All the agency rules, publications and studies we have seen supporting the Endangerment Finding and other Biden Net Zero Theory rules ignored, as if it does not exist, the robust and reliable scientific evidence that:
(a) carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global
warming and more extreme weather, detailed in Part III.
(b) there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future
generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs are
reduced to Net Zero and fossil fuels eliminated that will endanger public health
and welfare...
"Second, Unscientific Evidence at the Foundation. Unscientific evidence is all we have seen underlying the Endangerment Finding and all the other Biden Net Zero rules..."
These statements are part of the introduction to the paper, from page 3. The technical discussion later in the paper details the specific scientific evidence that is ignored, and the essentially fraudulent claims that are made to support the AGW scam. The paper runs to 46 pages, and has been written carefully for laymen, while adhering to scientific rigor that conforms to the physical understanding of Earth's climate. There is also discussion of policies, regulations, laws, and orders that are of critical importance and time sensitive.
"In summary, the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world's poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march."
IMG source - Lindzen and Happer (2025)
The above chart isn't a straight line, where radiation of heat declines linearly with increasing CO2. This is because of saturation, and because different GHGs radiate at specific frequencies (temperature) and not at others. You can see big dips where CO2 does conserve heat, and that is reducing the loss of heat by >30W/m^2, which is why Earth isn't an icy grave. You can also see that doubling CO2 to 800ppm makes no discernible difference from 400ppm.
"...CO2...becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations
because of what in physics is called "saturation." Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in "radiative forcing," or in temperature.
"Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to nearly 20 times higher than they are today...
"Worldwide Net Zero by 2050 — only avoids a temperature increase of 13/100 (0.13 °F)...
"In conclusion, since CO2 is now a weak GHG [because it has reached the saturation point], and the warming effects of the other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide, are so small that they [are] irrelevant to climate, there is no risk GHGs and fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather."
I would not call that catastrophic global warming. No one rational would. However, the economic disruption civil society would have to suffer to attain Net Zero would be catastrophic, and not just for people, but for all life on Earth. That is because CO2 is the chemical basis for life on Earth, the fuel for photosynthesis that causes plants to grow and make the food for all animals, and all the O2 animals need to breathe.
"...doubling carbon dioxide from today's approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%..."
Not just people, but all living things. Obviously I'm not providing here the details and rigor the 46 page paper provides. If you want to understand Earth's climate better, if you doubt my reporting, if you doubt the conclusions of the paper itself and want to find flaws to refute it with, follow the link and have at it.
I have understood AGW alarmism is a scam for most of a decade now, and one of the things this paper touches on is the $T's that are being raked in by the scammers. It's the second largest theft by fraud in history (only debt based money and fractional reserve banking are larger). Along with the other scams and frauds that are being committed against humanity today, the wars, the scamdemic, ethnic cleansing and genocide, child sex trafficking, rule by blackmail (extortocracy), prohibition, police state tyranny and surveillance, censorship, and all the other deliberate frauds and oppressions we suffer, we and our posterity are being robbed of unimaginable prosperity and felicity RIGHT NOW. The banksters that bribe and blackmail our governments are a gang of criminals, stealing the birthright rightfully ours, and our beloved sons and daughters - over our dead bodies.
We need to stop the lies, and this one, the AGW scam, is scientifically provably false. The $T's being sucked out of our wallets by the scammers can feed, house, and clothe the entire world right now. Have a look at the paper and understand the proof it provides that the AGW climate scam is theft by fraud, so that we can end the crime spree and deliver to our posterity what is theirs.
soource
Being yoked into a collective is the actual problem revealed. Independence is freedom.
Thanks!
Few men are islands.
You don't need to be a hermit to not be a slave. I work for myself, but all the work I do benefits my community. Like that.
Dear @valued-customer !
Are you against Eliminating Fossil Fuels?
By the way, Are you also against producing electric cars for Eliminating Fossil Fuels?
I can't spread your shocking claims in my country. Your claims are punishable by five years in prison for spreading false information here!😨
CRIMINAL LAW
a crime if I told the truth?
false information
I am a frog in boiling water right now!😔
Vehemently. There is a very good reason that growers use CO2 to increase production in greenhouses, and that is why I am building a greenhouse today.
You don't have to. Demonstrating the principle by producing goods enables them with merit to discover demonstrable facts, and is what is necessary to create wealth and personal prosperity. Growers in E. Asia use CO2 to increase production just like growers everywhere else. Independence is freedom. Independently create actual wealth and them as can do so will also create real wealth. That is the best we can do IRL.
Thanks!
Thank you for kind answer!
This is refreshing. Known for a long time, but now it's out in the open. !BBH
It's about time that the truth is acknowledged.
Thanks!
@valued-customer, I paid out 0.361 HIVE and 0.071 HBD to reward 9 comments in this discussion thread.
I want to get to know you and understand why you're aligned with the idea that "climate change is fake"
which do you prefer in your own financial and political interests - that climate change is real or that it isn't, and why?
also, do you understand yourself how GHG maintains habitable temperature on Earth? could you explain it to me as if I were 14 years old to make sure that we're on the same page?
could you state why you think any of the recent and popular studies saying that climate change is real isn't scientifically reliable?
also, let's pretend for a moment that I think this study you've shown is 100% scientifically accurate. should I then think that global warming as a whole is a scam? "Anthropogenic" does mean of environmental change in general after all.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @felipejoys, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.so if it's not global warming, I am left wondering what exactly is responsible for my city's average temperature rising by 10 degrees in the summer over the last 20 years, and why it is such a commonplace occurrence not only in my country but in many other countries as well...
this is clearly worrying since peak temperatures don't tipically rise by 10 degrees every 20 years
what could be the cause of this!?
and since it's not global, it is clearly safe to assume these are actually just thousands of local events instead which somehow never add up to something bigger and never influence each other. clearly, the amazon forest disappearing has no effect anywhere else...
is there anything I can do in my local area that will lower my city's temperature by a whole 10 degrees!?
also, what is your opinion on studies financed by corporations who have a desired result in mind? do you believe no scientist in the world would attempt to interpret data in a way that their paid to do, despite of how unethical that is?
last not but not least, do you think confirmation bias and naive optimism combined can make people think they are informed enough when the subject matter is actually far more complex than they antecipated?
Fraud and lies have become so common that they are mistaken for the genuine thing.
That's really the point of fraud, innit?
Thanks!