Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Steven Koonin discuss the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports – the globally sourced research on climate change – and how policymakers take summaries of summaries from these to justify their green agenda, despite what the reports actually suggest. They also discuss starvation, obesity, green economics, and nuclear futures.
Dr. Steven Koonin, a University Professor at NYU, has served as the Department of Energy’s Under Secretary for Science, as Chief Scientist for BP, and as professor and Provost at Caltech. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Governor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a senior fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses. Koonin holds a BS in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from MIT. He wrote the recent bestseller “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
It is important that this man has both dimensions: knowledge of climate science and energy production (technology, production, and business). Very few people have both perspectives, which is why you need to hear what he has to say.
What is not discussed in the media is the fact that the earth is becoming greener due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, Since the 1980s the increase is 40%. This is wonderful. For example, the Sahara Desert has been reduced by 15%. There is no apocalypse in the future, we can manage well if we allow scientists like Dr. Koonin to guide the change to more climate-friendly energy sources. Small modular nuclear reactors will be in the mix.
What really motivates those leading the Climate Change charge. In this video, Jordan Peterson interviews Dr. Richard Lindzen to talk about the climate change catastrophe narrative. I have given a lot of detail on his biography to prove that you should listen to what he has to say.
Climate is controlled by the Greenhouse effect. Is this correct? No, it is not and you will come to understand how futile the climate change catastrophe narrative is and how we have got to this crazy state with 97% of scientists agreeing with global warming. Administrative hyper-invasion of the technical schools is having a major impact. Also, many scientists would agree that increases in CO2 greenhouse effects are occurring, but would not agree there are tipping points that will result in catastrophic disasters.
Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist. He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference. He has attained multiple degrees from Harvard University, and won multiple awards in his field of study such as the Jule Charney award for “highly significant research in the atmospheric sciences”. Between 1983 and 2013, he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT where he earned emeritus status in July of 2013.
Concerning climate change, Martyn Isles of Australian Christian Lobby reminds us of the following scripture.
‘The Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”‘ Genesis 8:20-22
“As a first principle, the earth was made to be filled by us. It was made to resource that enterprise. The resources of the earth are given to us to use toward that end. It is not wrong to use the many resources God has placed within and on the earth.
As for the earth’s climate, it is *ultimately* controlled by God. His guarantee is that seasons and temperatures will be held within certain parameters which He ordains over the entire life of the earth – as long as it remains.
“He promises that food will be grown; that seasons will take place; that the weather will be both cold and hot …
“Whatever the temporal variations may be, the long-term guarantee is that God is in control for our good. That’s what the rainbow reminds us of.
“Take God out of the picture, and anxiety about those things which are above our pay grade gets out of control. That includes the weather.
“We get to “tend” and “keep” the garden (so by all means compost and recycle and whatnot – this is not a license to be reckless or to pillage), but we don’t control its ultimate paradigm.
“We are the creatures. He is the Creator. The reversal of that order is one of the timeless sins of the human race.
The scriptural statements on these matters (which actually make sense of the observable realities) are seldom invoked even by Christian leaders – probably for fear of being considered foolish.
“God’s words are good enough for me.” Also, God has told us the end of the story for this planet – Jesus returns to rule and reign for 1000 years and then the end will come.
This is a must-watch video for everybody particularly our politicians so make sure you send it on as widely as possible. Are humans antagonistic to our biosphere? Reserve judgment until you have watched this video. In fact, I now realize that hatred for humanity and industrialization is the agenda of the “climate concerned” left. The planet is getting greener (at least 15% more) and the main reason for this is the increase in CO2 levels. How come I have not heard of this? Did you know the Sahara desert is reducing in size?
Dr. Jordan B Peterson and Alex Epstein discuss the undeniable need for fossil fuels, the toxic underlying nihilism of the “climate concerned” left, the need for balance between conservation and human progress, and the unexplored worth of wild potential.
Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert who argues that “human flourishing” should be the guiding principle of energy and environmental progress. He is the author of the new bestselling book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
Alex is the creator of EnergyTalkingPoints.com—a source of powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have delivered their biennial dose of depression about the climate, but their report ignores a slew of positive environmental changes. Article by PETER RIDD in The Weekend Australian Sunday 27th November 2022.
The latest report should ring alarm bells – but not just about climate. Is this an excellent tool of propaganda, or is it a scientific statement?
The climate has warmed by 1.5C and there is barely a single benefit according to climate change experts – but is it all disaster?
It is often said, “if it is too good to be true, it probably is” and you are being conned. What about too bad to be true? Can a gently warming climate have no significant benefits at all? The only marginally encouraging part of the report is about northern Australia. There might have been a slight reduction in cyclone numbers, and there has been a bit more rain in recent decades.
Apart from that, the report reads like the Book of Exodus – one disaster after another. Only the frogs and boils are missing. But it is significant that the period when Egyptians were building pyramids, which was hotter than today’s climate, is often called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The word “optimum” was an indication that scientists working in the era before climate alarmism could see some advantage of a warmer climate.
A sure sign that the report tries too hard to find disaster is when it discusses coral bleaching and the Great Barrier Reef. It stresses that there have been four bleaching events in the past six years, which it implies were devastating. But for some reason, the report fails to mention that this year the reef recorded its highest amount of coral since records began in 1985.
This proves that all the hype about coral loss from bleaching was greatly exaggerated. But the report writers were obviously untroubled by the contradictory evidence. They ignored it.
The northern and central Great Barrier Reef have recorded their highest amount of coral cover since the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) began monitoring 36 years ago.
And they also ignore the fact that corals grow about 15 percent faster for every degree temperature rise, and that almost all the corals on the reef also live in much warmer water near the equator. We should expect better coral, and it should extend further south. That is not too bad, is it?
Why doesn’t the report mention that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere improves the water utilization efficiency of dryland plants, which occupy most of Australia, and that this has caused plants to thrive? According to NASA satellites, there is a “greening” of Australia of at least 10 percent. Overall, the world has seen the area of green leaves expand by the equivalent of twice the area of the United States in just 35 years.
In a changing climate, there will be winners and losers, and it might be that the net effect is a major problem. But if the report writers will not even mention the good bits, how can we have any confidence in its findings?
We should all worry about whether groupthink has taken hold of the BOM and CSIRO.
We should worry when the BOM says it has recently adjusted all the temperature records reducing the temperatures a century ago by up to a degree. Can we have any confidence they did this with good scientific reason?
And we should worry about the BOM’s claims that the fire seasons are now much worse than in 1950. Why is all the information on huge bushfires before 1950 ignored – like the devastating 1851 Victorian bushfire and the 1939 fires? It is not like there is no data before 1950.
Did they ignore that data for a good reason? Is this similar to the US fire statistics, which are often reported by authorities as having a major increase in fire acreage burnt since the early 60s, but fail to mention that there was almost 10 times more acreage burnt in the “dust-bowl” period in the 1930s?
In the next decades, Australian governments plan to spend hundreds of billions attempting to prevent climate change. Before we do that, maybe we could spend a few million doing an audit of BOM and CSIRO reports.
Maybe we would find that adapting to a changing climate is by far the best way to proceed. We might even find that some of what we have been told is wrong.
Why will the conservative parties not commit to an audit? Who would argue against a bit of checking of the science, when the Great Barrier Reef statistics prove scientists got something badly wrong?
And the latest report is a sure sign that the BOM and CSIRO are drifting into political advocacy rather than science, observation, and objective prediction.
Peter Ridd is an Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
This is further evidence we are in the “end times” and that God’s truth and judgement have been thrown off.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is doing well, in fact great. But the popular media won’t report this good news, but here is what a knowledgeable expert on the reef has to say. Dr. Peter Ridd a geophysicist, physical oceanographer, and inventor — has worked on the Great Barrier Reef since 1984 and has written over 100 scientific publications. Now an adjunct fellow at The Institute of Public Affairs, he was fired in 2018 from teaching at Australia’s James Cook University after criticizing exaggerations about reef damage. Dr. Ridd is also a member of the CO2 Coalition of Arlington, Virginia.
The Great Barrier Reef is made up of approximately 3,000 reefs covering an area nearly the size of California off Australia’s eastern coast. The condition of its coral is frequently referenced as an indicator of the reef’s health, regularly in the context of the supposed damage global warming is doing to the planet.
The reef now has more coral than any time since records began in 1986, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). There is roughly 20 percent more coral on the GBR than last year, which itself equaled a previous record year. All three major regions of the reef now have excellent coral cover and AIMS states that two regions are at record-breaking high levels.
As of the latest 2022 survey of the GBR, coral covered 34 percent of the seabed, double the lowest coverage recorded in 2012. There are many types of ecosystems on reefs other than coral – 34% is a remarkably high number.
This coral health exists despite four supposedly massively destructive and unprecedented bleaching events striking parts of the reef since 2016 – all allegedly due to climate change and one as recently as this year. Coral reefs typically take five to 10 years to recover from major damage, so how can GBR be enjoying such good health this soon? Is it possible that reef-science institutions exaggerated the damage in the first place to advance the global warming narrative? Perhaps.
However, 36 years of AIMS data show that large amounts of coral occasionally die — usually from cyclones, hot-water bleaching, or starfish plagues — but that recovery is often fast. For example, the Cooktown region suffered a moderate coral loss after a 2016 bleaching event but had recovered by 2021. By far, the biggest loss of coral was after Cyclone Hamish smashed the southern half of the reef in 2009. Recovery was largely complete by 2016.
These marine events, which have been going on for millennia, are akin to terrestrial bushfires from which the land quickly recuperates. However, untrustworthy institutions of science and other climate alarmists use them to foster hysteria over a climate that has vacillated between warmth and cold for as long as they have been observed.
These same purveyors of hyperbole then ignore or downplay news of the reef’s convalescence. For example, last year’s good news of coral coverage matching previous records was dismissed by claims that only the fast-growing coral had recovered. Poppycock! It is these species — staghorn and plate coral — that are most delicate and susceptible to damage and most obvious in their recovery.
The exceptional news this year is that almost every region of the reef is doing extremely well. For so much of the reef’s coral to be this healthy at the same time is very unusual. Normally, a large chunk of the reef is recovering from a major cyclone that drags down the average. So when the reef’s overall coverage is at today’s level of more than thirty percent of the area, the GBR’s health is indeed good.
This overall health is only apparent if the condition of the entire reef is reported. For whatever reason, AIMS stopped in 2017 averaging regional data to provide a composite view of the reef’s condition. I had to do that calculation for recent years myself to get a complete picture. Is this another instance of obscuring positive data?
Those who would play down the news of exceptional reef health should consider the unnecessary emotional damage being inflicted on children worried about their future. Elementary school students in America speak of their premature demise because of a faux climate emergency. A 2019 Australian survey reported that “around half of the residents, tourists and tourist operators surveyed, and almost one-quarter of fishers, report significant Reef Grief.”
God’s amazing creation has exceptional recuperative powers that provide further proof of intelligent design not evolution by random chance.
Western values are foundationally derived from Christianity, but an increasingly secular, humanistic society has lost sight of its roots. One outcome of this is that we are witnessing the development of a form of environmentalism that is disinterested in evaluating and meeting the needs of ordinary people.
One prime example of this post-Christian thinking in relation to climate change is UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He appealed to the UN General Assembly (22 September 2021) to argue for dramatic changes to global policy in use of carbon-based fuels. In his speech he undermined a basic Christian doctrine relating to the status and rights of mankind. He further appealed to the evolutionary tenets of naturalism, the Greek gods, and the ability of mankind to “save ourselves”
Boris Johnson started his speech by invoking millions of years, and that mankind is a relative latecomer, having been around for less than one million years:
“An inspection of the fossil record over the last 178 million years – since mammals first appeared – reveals that the average mammalian species exists for about a million years before it evolves into something else or vanishes into extinction. Of our allotted lifespan of a million, humanity has been around for about 200,000.”1
It is interesting, but somewhat bewildering, that Johnson should reference a period from the Jurassic, in which, he suggests, naturalistic science places the first appearance of mammals. The irony is that scientific papers have argued that during this time carbon dioxide levels (CO2) were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm (parts per million). That is 2.5 to 5 times greater than where they are today, when global average temperatures were supposedly 5 to 10 degrees Celsius higher for prolonged periods (Ref 1 & 2 below). If the assumptions of naturalism and deep-time are true, then responsibility for such CO2 levels cannot be placed upon the shoulders of the not-yet-evolved human beings.
With this in mind, we may consider that setting the issue of climate change in the framework of a life and death struggle for the planet, as Johnson and other environmental campaigners do, is bogus. Of course, we can acknowledge that there may be practical problems that arise from a warming climate for humanity. This is applicable for example to permanent dwellings in coastal towns and cities that are subject to flooding (CMI has a comprehensive position paper on Climate Change). But, despite some evidence of more severe weather, improved planning, plus an accurate forecasting and warning capability, has led to a reduction in fatalities from such natural disasters. This was reported by the World Meteorological Organisation.
Boris Johnson fails to deal with the complexity of the environmental issues that arise, and instead resorts to easy sound bites. These undermine a central Christian belief about mankind’s place in the world:
“We still cling with part of our minds to the infantile belief that the world was made for our gratification and pleasure and we combine this narcissism with an assumption of our own immortality. … It is time for humanity to grow up.”
He misrepresents the Judeo-Christian belief that natural resources are a divine gift for humanity, and that people are justified in utilising them out of necessity, albeit not for selfish gratification or pleasure. But he calls this belief “infantile”. Use of natural materials, such as iron, coal, oil, and gas, have brought great benefit to humanity, not least in terms of raising people out of poverty. Even so, we recognise this is not always without negative environmental or health impacts.
This only shows that making decisions about the environment is a complex process. It requires thinking in terms of inter-related systems. That is, thinking about the needs of human communities, businesses, the ecosystem etc., and so balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders and groups. These interested groups are sometimes in competition, or conflict with one another, and their needs do not necessarily align. It cannot be dismissed as an easy task.
And yet, Johnson appears to do so with a childish reference to one of the Muppet characters. He commented; “And when Kermit the frog sang It’s Not Easy Bein’ Green, I want you to know he was wrong.”
If we are to “grow up”, as Johnson states, it must be in terms of recognising the complexity of the issues involved, and bravely facing the truth about the world as it actually is.
Need for good stewardship
Of course, utilisation of natural resources needs to be done responsibly. That is, with concern for social and environmental protection, and without the greedy exploitation of unrestrained capitalism. Mankind has been given dominion over the earth by God (Genesis 1:26), and we should fill our role of stewardship with diligent duty. We must not forget the poor in addressing a problem that may not entirely be the result of humanity in the first place.
In the context of the use of carbon fuels, his statement to the UN General Assembly demonstrates that Prime Minister Johnson is out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. Like many green utopians, who are often the wealthy elite in society, there is a failure to see that access to cheap carbon fuels is necessary. This is especially so for people to travel, cook food, and keep warm in winter. Cheap carbon fuels are not greedily consumed for human “gratification and pleasure”, but are a basic necessity for life. It would be great if renewable energy could supply the basic needs for power, light, and heat, but much of the technology is not there yet in terms of quantity and quality.
With some irony, Johnson delivered his speech at a time when market natural gas prices were rocketing in the UK, and many other countries across the world. This was hitting the pockets of ordinary consumers. In the UK, the cause of this was partly related to government policy to reduce UK carbon emissions. As well-known journalist and author Peter Hitchens has pointed out, “Utopians, as George Orwell demonstrated, prefer their visions to reality or truth.
While ignoring the Judeo-Christian place of mankind in the world, Johnson believes we can save ourselves through science. Along with this, he references the Greek gods. Johnson, who majored in the Classics at Oxford University, has previously expressed knowledge of Scripture and Christian doctrines. But disappointingly on this occasion, his speech effectively idolised the scientific endeavour. It also showed his ignorance of the fact that God is in total control of His universe and the many Biblical prophecies relating to Jesus second coming to earth to rule for 1000 years. Boris stated:
“… it is through our Promethean faith in new green technology that we are cutting emissions in the UK.”1
Prometheus, being the god of forethought, is considered by Johnson to be a suitable allegory, or idol, for the faith we place in science. But we may note that Prometheus was also said to be a ‘supreme trickster’.11 Johnson is convinced it’s the strength of humanity that will get us out of this ‘self-inflicted mess’, and so we can ‘save ourselves’. He commented:
“We are awesome in our power to change things and awesome in our power to save ourselves, and in the next 40 days we must choose what kind of awesome we are going to be.”1
This astounding statement entirely ignores the reality of humanity’s fallen condition, evident by reading any newspaper or newsfeed, as well as taught in Scripture. It is very reminiscent of the Pelagian heresy, which arose in the fifth century in Rome against the Pauline / Augustinian doctrine of grace.12 Pelagianism undermines the effect of the Fall, and holds that mankind can attain perfection through self-effort—without the need for divine grace.
In response to such a skewed worldview, Peter Hitchens commented recently that it is only when “everyone sees what a post-Christian country is really like, they may begin to be interested in the gospels again.”
Berner, R.A., Kothavala, Z., and GeoCARB III, A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time, Amer. J. Sci.301:182–204, 2001. Also: Bergman, N. et al., COPSE: A new model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time, American Journal of Science304:397–437, 2004. Rothman, D.H., Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(7):4167–4171, 2001. Royer, D.L., et al., CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate, GSA Today14(3):4–10, 2004. Return to text.
Worsley, T.R., Moore, T.L., Fraticelli, C.M., and Scotese, C.R., Phanerozoic, CO2 levels and global temperatures inferred from changing paleogeography, Geol. Soc. of Amer. Special Paper 288, 1994. See also the temperature reconstruction graph by Scotese, C., PALEOMAPproject, scotese.com/climate.htm, 2015.Return to text.
Part 1 of an important article by Don Batten and the CMI team entitled Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Go to http://www.creation.com to see the entire article.
Several important facts and concerns about this debate:
CO2 is ‘plant food’: Planet Earth’s plants would benefit from more of it, not less. Indeed, the increase in CO2 is now responsible for 30% of the world’s biomass production (food and fibre) over the last century, as documented in a paper in Nature in 2017.81 This is food for people and animals. And with more CO2 in the air, plants have to spend less time with their leaf pores (stomata) open. Thus they lose less water during the day and can survive on less water.82 Deserts are greening, largely because of the extra CO2. With the pre-Flood Earth having up to 15 times the CO2 that we have now, plant productivity would have been amazing. That is where fossil fuels came from, as the vegetation of the pre-Flood world was buried during the Flood and then converted into coal and oil. The draw-down in atmospheric CO2, with the burial of much carbon in the ground and the re-vegetation of the earth after the Flood, has resulted in the CO2 ‘drought’ that we are now in. This has been hampering plant productivity and the carrying capacity of planet Earth (at levels from 50–170 ppm, depending on the species, plants die)
Green House Gases (GHGs) are essential for life: Without them, the average temperature would be ~33°C lower; in other words, we would be well and truly frozen!27 Nearly all of this GHG effect is due to water vapour, and only about 3.3°C is due to CO2. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, which have no greenhouse effect. Many discussions of climate change have excluded the effects of water vapour, which should respond dynamically to changes in temperature. Yet, since water has a much greater greenhouse effect, the exclusion of water from the debate is inexcusable. Other significant GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, and chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs), which were popular refrigerants in the past that have been removed from the equation.
Source of human global warming: If the concern was truly about saving the planet from global warming due to human-generated CO2, then the greatest sources of CO2 should be the main target for the action? Then why, when China is the world’s largest CO2 producer, is no one protesting outside Chinese embassies? Australia (for example) contributes just 1.2% of the world’s emissions, and yet is a target for activism. Yet if its emissions disappeared completely (with Australia reduced to a pre-industrial age), it would not make a detectable difference in world CO2 levels. China had nearly a thousand gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired electricity generation as of 2018, compared to 36 GW for Australia. Moreover, neither China nor India have any target to reduce their total CO2 emissions under the Paris Accord. Hundreds of new coal-fired power stations are planned for China, India, and other places. Where are the protests about China and India ‘destroying the planet’? The moral imperative should surely be to go after the biggest contributors first.
Fake News: In 1989 the UN said, “Entire nations will be wiped out by the year 2000 if sea level rises are not stopped.” Did this happen? No! Tuvalu, a Pacific Ocean nation of island atolls, is a favourite poster child for this claim. However, Tuvalu has increased 3% in land area over the last 40 years.
In 2007, Dr Tim Flannery, an evolutionary mammologist who headed up the Australian government’s climate change unit, predicted that even the rain that would fall would not be enough to fill reservoirs. Largely based on such dire predictions, desalination plants were built in three Australian states, at great expense; two have never been used. Australia has had major floods since then. Such expensive mistakes make it harder for governments to invest in major new projects if a real need arises. Flannery also said in 2008, “Just imagine yourself in a world five years from now , when there is no more ice over the Arctic.” Similarly, in 2008 Al Gore said that the polar ice would be gone by the summer of 2014. They were echoing the common view of ‘mainstream’ climate scientists (e.g. James Hansen, Peter Wadhams, and others, widely reported in media outlets). The Arctic sea ice area measured each September (the end of summer, its lowest extent of the year) declined from about 7.5 million km₂ in 1980 to about 4–5.5 million km₂ from 2010–2020 (NSIDC/NASA)—which is still a lot of ice, so the predictions of no ice were seriously out of touch with reality. Please note that fluctuations in the amount of Arctic ice are expected. Besides short-term variation, there could be long-term trends as well. Also, this cannot be divorced from a discussion of the Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood.
Failed Predictions: The most relevant failed predictions of the climate alarmists are those regarding rising global temperature, from the climate models.
The planet has warmed by about 0.8°C since 188024 and half of this warming occurred before there was any significant change in the CO225(that is, this part of the warming could not be due to human activity).
Atmospheric CO2 has increased since 1860 from about 285 ppm (parts-per-million; 0.029%) to 410 ppm (0.041%) in 2020. The rate of rise is about 2 ppm per year, or about a 50% rise over 160 years. It is important to realise the human contribution to CO2 emissions through the burning of fossil fuels is less than 5% of the total global carbon budget. Other sources include changes in land use (e.g. deforestation), volcanoes, the weathering of rocks, the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans (any warming of the oceans results in CO2 being less soluble and therefore it is released into the atmosphere), the breakdown of organic remains (dead wood in forests), etc.
More Fake News: The claim that 97% of scientists agree that human-generated CO2 will cause catastrophic warming to planet earth is fake news. When the raw data are examined, according to the authors’ own ratings, only 64 of the nearly 12,000 papers actually claimed that most of the warming is caused by human activity. In a follow-up analysis of the same papers, other researchers found that only 41 of those 64 papers endorsed the position that most of global warming was man-made.31 Taking into consideration that ⅔ of the papers expressed no view, that amounts to less than 1% of the papers that expressed a view. How did the authors get their 97%? They amalgamated all views that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing some warming. This is a trivial finding. In the USA, the Global Warming Petition Project has garnered the signatures of some 31,500 scientists resident in the USA alone, including over 9,000 with PhDs, who dispute the claim that CO2 will cause serious problems.29 This alone casts serious doubt on the 97% figure.
In 2016 alone, over 500 papers were published in peer-reviewed science journals that seriously questioned the supposed ‘consensus’ on climate change.33
Some high-profile scientists who dispute the alarmism include:
Lennart O. Bengtsson, who was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.
John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville, and NASA. He and Dr John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.35
Judith A. Curry, who due to the “craziness” of the politicization of climate science, in 2017 took early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, USA, a position she had held for 15 years.
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, contributed to the IPCC’s 1995 and 2001 reports but became skeptical of the alarmist climate model projections.
Nir J. Shaviv, Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
There are many others. In September 2019, a global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals stated that there is no ‘climate emergency’. They invited the UN to organize with them a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020.36