GLOBAL WARMING

and the irrelevance of science
Richard Lindzen

The Global Warming Policy Foundation
GWPF Essay 4

GWPF REPORTS
Views expressed in the publications of
the Global Warming Policy Foundation
are those of the authors, not those of
the GWPF, its Academic Advisory Council members or its directors
THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION
Director
Benny Peiser
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Lord Lawson (Chairman)
Lord Donoughue
Lord Fellowes
Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester
Sir Martin Jacomb
ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL
Professor Christopher Essex (Chairman)
Adrian Berry
Sir Samuel Brittan
Sir Ian Byatt
Professor Vincent Courtillot
Professor Freeman Dyson
Christian Gerondeau
Dr Indur Goklany
Professor William Happer
Professor David Henderson
Professor Terence Kealey
Professor Deepak Lal
Professor Richard Lindzen
CREDITS
Cover image

Peter Lilley MPCharles Moore
Baroness Nicholson
Graham Stringer MP
Lord Turnbull

Professor Ross McKitrick
Professor Robert Mendelsohn
Professor Ian Plimer
Professor Paul Reiter
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Professor Nir Shaviv
Professor Philip Stott
Professor Henrik Svensmark
Professor Richard Tol
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt
Dr David Whitehouse

Detail from ‘An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump’
Joseph Wright, 1768. Public domain.

GLOBAL WARMING

and the irrelevance of science
Richard Lindzenc Copyright 2016 The Global Warming Policy Foundationiii

About the author
Richard S. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus, at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

NoteThis essay is the text of a lecture delivered on 20 August 2015 to the 48th Session of
the Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies.

iv

In many fields, governments have a monopoly on the support of scientific research.
Ideally, they support the science because they believe objective research to be valuable. Unfortunately, as anticipated by Eisenhower in his farewell speech from 17 January 1961 (the one that also warned of the military–industrial complex), ‘Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.’ Under these circumstances, when the government
wants a particular scientific outcome the ideal arrangement is vulnerable. However,as I hope to show, the problem is not simply bias. Rather, the powers that be invent
the narrative independently of the views of even cooperating scientists. It is in thissense that the science becomes irrelevant. This was certainly the case in the first halfof the twentieth century, where we just have to look at Lysenkoism in the former Soviet Union,1 social Darwinism and eugenics throughout the western world, 2 as wellas the unfounded demonisation of DDT in thr 1960s. 3 Each phenomenon led to millions of deaths. And, in each case, the scientific community was essentially paralysed,
if not actually complicit.
Will climate catastrophism join this list? It appears so. The position of the policy
world is clear. Here is President Obama’s constant refrain:
Climate change is contributing to extreme weather, wildfires, and drought, andthat rising temperatures can lead to more smog and more allergens in the air webreathe, meaning more kids are exposed to the triggers that can cause asthma
attacks.

Pope Francis, President Hollande, and virtually all state leaders have chimed in withsimilar proclamations. And yet, the whole proposition is largely without basis andhighly implausible. The association with asthma that is regularly made by both Obama
and Hillary Clinton is a good example of nonsense driven by focus groups who findthis to be an effective scare theme.
The other claims are no better. In the 1970s the scientific community regularly
designated warm periods as ‘climate optima’. That carbon dioxide was essential toplants and effectively a fertiliser was also widely understood. Thus, it was not surprising that the early environmental movement chose to promote fear of global cooling, which, not surprisingly, was attributed to industrial emissions (most notably sulphates).4
However, in the late 1970s it was recognised that sulphates could be scrubbed,
that the irreducible product of industrial emissions was carbon dioxide, that carbon
dioxide emissions were likely to warm rather than cool, and that there was an hypothetical process whereby this warming could be amplified (by what came to be
known as the water vapour feedback). 5 At this point the whole narrative was turnedon its head. The hitherto optimal warming was now put forth as a consequence tobe feared. President Carter’s science adviser, Frank Press, had the National ResearchCouncil investigate the matter, leading to the famous Charney Report from 1979. 6
1

This report summarised the results of the primitive climate models of that period,and found that they had a range of sensitivities to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations of 1.5–4.5◦ C.7 The report regarded such results as possible but attachedlittle credibility to the models, noting the need to better understand why the models
behaved as they did. The report nonetheless provided a measure of credibility to thewarming hypothesis. The whole situation was eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal
Farm, when ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ became ‘four legs good, two legs better’.
Repetition was the mechanism used to convince. So was the claim, already madeby 1988 in Newsweek, that ‘all scientists agreed.’ The larger public thus had no reason
to actually dig into the science. Indeed, the actual science had already become irrelevant. This new narrative depended not only on the allegation of consensus, but also
on lineage. It was always pointed out that the greenhouse effect had already been
identified in the early 19th Century by Tyndall, 8 later by Arrhenius,9 and still later byCallendar.10 While this was true, it was also the case that the effect was generally
held to be of much less importance than changes in the general circulation related totransport. For example, in an important collection of papers from 1955 11 with contributions from the leading climate scientists of the period – Charney, Phillips, Lorenz,
Eliassen, Smagorinsky, etc. – increasing carbon dioxide was barely mentioned, andthe greenhouse effect was not mentioned at all. The model favored for global cooling alarm was the Budyko–Sellers model, 12 which also focused on meridional heattransport. Only with the decision to push global warming alarm did the greenhouseeffect become central to the discussion of climate. Needless to add, consensus andlineage are not generally regarded as the backbones of science.
The implausibility or even outright silliness through which global warming became global warming catastrophism∗ is so extensive that one hardly knows where to
begin. It is crucial to emphasise catastrophism because the situation is made evenmore incoherent by the intentional conflation of simple basic results that are widelyagreed upon, but which have no catastrophic implications, with catastrophism itself.
Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science
world:• climate change exists• there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the beginningof the 19th century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly)• human emissions can contribute to climate change• levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been increasing.
None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm. However, in thepolicy world, as emerges from virtually any reading of the current political discourse∗

2

Sometimes referred to as CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

and its attendant media coverage, the innocuous agreement is taken to be equivalent(with essentially no support from observations, theory or even models) to rampant
catastrophism. There are numerous examples of the issuance of unalarming claims,
regardless of their validity or lack thereof, that are interpreted as demanding immediate action. Perhaps the most striking example involves the iconic statement of the
IPCC: Most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man. Is this statement
actually alarming? First, we are speaking of small changes. 0.25 ◦ C would be about
51% of the recent warming. Given the uncertainties in both the data and its analysis,
this is barely distinguishable from zero. Evidence of this uncertainty is shown by thecommon adjustments of this magnitude that are made to the record.
Some charts from the weather page of the Boston Globe of 12 March 2013 – anyother date would serve as well – illustrate how small the changes really are. In theattached figure we see the high and low temperatures for each day in the preceding
month (black), the average high and low temperature for each date (dark grey) andthe record high and low temperature for each date (light grey). The width of the black
horizontal line corresponds to the change in the global mean temperature anomaly
over the past 150 years.
80

Actual temperatures

Normal temperatures

Record temperatures
Recordhigh: 67
1990

70
60
50

Normalhigh: 44

40

Normallow: 3030
20Recordlow: 9
1939

10
0
-10
-20

9

12

15

February

18

21

24

27

2

5

8

11

March

Figure 1: Actual, normal and record temperatures
Temperatures in degrees Farenheit for a period spanning February and March. Redrawn
from the Boston Globe, 12 March 2013.

High and low temperatures result from the advection of air roughly along the pathof the jet stream. This path changes from day to day and year to year. Record breaking
temperatures, regardless of the year that they occurred, correspond roughly to thewarmest and coldest temperatures on the temperature map for 11 March.
Second, the recent warming episode is not at all unprecedented. The almost identical episode from about 1919–1940 cannot be attributed to man.
3

Third, the observed warming is completely consistent with low climate sensitivity. Alarm requires, for starters (and only for starters), high sensitivity. By sensitivity,
we mean how much warming we expect for each doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. High sensitivity is generally regarded as 3 ◦ C or more. If we were to assume that all warming over the past 50 years were due to added greenhouse gases,
we would conclude that the sensitivity was about 1 ◦ C. How do models with muchhigher sensitivity manage to replicate the past 50 years? They do so by subtracting from the greenhouse warming essentially unknown aerosols, which they theninclude as due to human emissions. However, in a recent paper from the Max Planck
Institute, Stevens (2015) finds that aerosols are limited and unable to compensate forthe higher sensitivities.13 If man accounts for only 51% of the recent warming, theneven modest future warming becomes implausible.
Although it has become commonplace to fear warming, it is worth noting thatthe approximately 1◦ C warming since the 19th century has been accompanied by
the improvement of all indices of human welfare, including environmental quality.
Indeed, the very notion that climate is described by a single number that is forcedby another single number, is itself a bit strange. For example, the force on a piston acting on a gas in a cylinder certainly does determine the pressure. However, as Budyko
and Izrael noted long ago,14 climate change is characterised by relatively stable tropics and changes in the equator-to-pole temperature difference. This, crudely speaking, has to do with heat transport. Pursuing the analogy with the piston, would wereally expect the flow through a pipe to depend on the mean pressure in the pipe
rather than the gradient of pressure along the pipe?
Why then do scientists go along with this? The situation has been described byme earlier as consisting of an iron triangle. 15 At one vertex are the scientists who makemeaningless or ambiguous statements. The scientific assessment of Working Group Iof the IPCC is full of such statements. Then there is the second vertex: that of the
advocates and media who ‘translate’ the statements into alarmist declarations. The
advocates also include the IPCC’s Working Groups II and III, which deal with impacts
and mitigation by assuming worst case scenarios from Working Group I. Politiciansalso are often part of the advocacy efforts. The third vertex consists of the politicians
who respond to alarm by feeding more money to the scientists in the first vertex. As
far as the scientists are concerned, what’s not to like? Should the scientist ever feel
any guilt over the matter, it is assuaged by two irresistible factors:
1. The advocates define public virtue.
2. His administrators are delighted with the grant overhead.
Of course, scientists are hardly the main beneficiaries. The current issue of global
warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that
opportunistically have strong motivations for believing in the claims of catastrophe
despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are:4

• leftist economists for whom global warming represents a supreme example ofmarket failure, as well as a wonderful opportunity to suggest correctives• UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance• Third World dictators, who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid, in other words the transfer of wealth from the poor in richcountries to the wealthy in poor countries• environmental activists, who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten thegullible into making hefty contributions to their NGOs
• crony capitalists, who see the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy• government regulators, for whom the control of a natural product of breathing
is a dream come true
• newly minted billionaires, who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions• politicians, who can fasten on to CAGW as a signature issue where they can act
as demagogues without fear of contradiction from reality or complaint fromthe purported beneficiaries of their actions (the wildly successful London runof ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ dealt with this)• etc., etc.
All of the above special interests, quite naturally, join the chorus of advocates.
Strange as it may seem, even the fossil fuel industry is generally willing to go alongwith the movement. After all, they realise better than most that there is no current replacement for fossil fuels. The closest possibilities, nuclear and hydro, are despised by
the environmentalists. As long as fossil fuel companies have a level playing field, andcan pass expenses on to consumers, they are satisfied. Given the nature of corporate
overhead, the latter can even form a profit center.
In point of fact, many of the foremost scientific supporters of alarm acknowledge
the absence of a basis for catastrophism. Here are some remarks the presidents of theRoyal Society (Martin Rees) and of the National Academy (Ralph Cicerone) publishedin the Financial Times.16
Straightforward physics tells us that this rise is warming the planet. Calculations
demonstrate that this effect is very likely responsible for the gradual warming
observed over the past 30 years and that global temperatures will continue torise – superimposing a warming on all the other effects that make climate fluctuate. Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the ‘feedback’ effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research.

Rees and Cicerone are counting on the fact that most readers won’t notice thatthe so-called ‘uncertainties’ are, in fact, the main issue; the straightforward physics is
trivial. They continue:
5Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a lowcarbon economy.

Clearly, despite the implicit fact that the need for action is uncertain, the policy istaken for granted and even endorsed.
Here is an exchange from the BBC Radio 4 interview of Ralph Cicerone on 13 July
2012. John Humphrys is the interviewer.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: You don’t sound, if I can use this word, ‘apocalyptic’. I mean,
you’re not saying ‘If we don’t do these things, we’re going to go to hell in a handbasket, we’re going to fry, in a few years’.
RALPH CICERONE: Well, there are people who are saying those things, John.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But not you.
RALPH CICERONE: No. I don’t think it’s useful, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, andwe don’t have that kind of evidence.

The situation may have been best summarised by Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall
Centre at the University of East Anglia, a centre of concern for global warming:
To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-ladenassumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s successor as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute ofSpace Studies, whose website, Realclimate.org, is a major defender of global warming, does not agree with claims of extremes:
General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media. . . It’s this popular perception that
global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if
anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realise that’s nonsense.

Interestingly, basic meteorological theory tells us that extremes depend significantly on the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles – somethingthat is expected to diminish in a warmer world.
On the other hand, there is quite a lot of ‘science on demand’ as Eisenhower anticipated.

6

The well-established Medieval Warm
Period is a problem for the narrative.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick gets ridof the Medieval Warm Period.

The physics of moist convection requires that warming maximise in thetropical upper tropospheric troposphere, and models agree, but thedata doesn’t show this.
Significant warming ended about 18
years ago showing that carbon dioxide is not the major factor in climate.
Quite a few independent studies
show that the outgoing radiationfrom the earth indicate low climate
sensitivity.

Ben Santer reworks the data to show
the maximum.

Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

Jim Hansen absurdly claims that
this is what one should expect fromglobal warming (which, however, has
not been occurring for 18 years).

Basic dynamics of the atmospherecalls for reduced extremes andstorminess in a warmer world.

John Holdren invents a cockamamie
theory of tropospheric polar jets toclaim that such an imaginary jet isdestabilised with warming, leading tomore and more extreme storminess.

Tommy Karl adjusts and rearranges
the data to eliminate the pause.
Andy Dessler ignores the physical andmathematical constraints to claim the
opposite (at a truly negligible significance level).

It should be noted that the first four items in the above list of ‘science on demand’represent dubious data manipulation, but little that is alarming. For example, Karl’s‘elimination’ of the pause still leaves his resulting temperature series well below almost all model projections. That is to say, the models are still ‘running hot.’ The last
two items, on the other hand, simply represent the pure imagination of alarmists.
As Pat Michaels showed, there is a remarkable bias in publications. 17 For articles
in Nature and Science during the period 1 July 2005–30 July 2006, he found a total of
116 publications dealing with climate data. Of these, 84 were ‘worse’, 10 were ‘better’,and 22 were ‘neutral’ with respect to earlier claims. The relative numbers for Scienceand Nature, respectively, were 34 and 50 (worse), 5 and 5 (better) and 9 and13 (neutral). Assuming existing studies were equally likely to be better or worse, this result
would have negligible likelihood. Of course, given Michaels’ findings, it is almost certain that the existing studies were already biased – thus rendering likelihood almost
infinitesimal.
7

In point of fact, the Climategate 1 and 2 email releases showed explicitly the breakdown in peer review.18
We have, thus far, ignored the ‘impacts’ industry, in which papers are published(and research is supported) attributing hundreds of things to the minimal warmingthat has occurred. The website WhatReallyHappened.com lists some of these, ranging from acne to walrus stampedes to typhoid fever. 19 Note that even in this extensive
list, asthma is not mentioned.
Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts has reflected on
the failure of his alarmist position to sway the world:
Sometimes I have this dream. . . I call the fire brigade. But they don’t come because some mad person keeps telling them it’s a false alarm. The situation isgetting more and more desperate, but I can’t convince the firemen to get going.

Such nightmares over a few tenths of a degree seems a little exaggerated. One expects that a counsellor might be more effective than a fireman.
The take of political figures is generally misinformed, and commonly transcends
the absurd. Senators McCain and Lieberman offered the standard misreading of the
IPCC Working Group I’s iconic statement:
The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded
there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing mostof the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial’s coffin
about the problem of global warming.’ 20

Of course, the IPCC Working Group I wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of asmall change in temperature constituted a ‘problem.’ This, they left to the politicians.
Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry went much further in a lengthy speech delivered in Indonesia in February of 2015. Here are some selections:. . . When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about
this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change
ranks right up there with every single one of them. And it is a challenge that I
address in nearly every single country that I visit as Secretary of State, because
President Obama and I believe it is urgent that we do so. . .
. . . it’s compelling us to act. And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that thescience is absolutely certain. . .
. . . I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college,some aspects of science or physics can be tough – chemistry. But this is nottough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this. . . [It shouldcome as no surprise that Kerry proceeds to get literally everything wrong in his
subsequent description of the science.]. . . First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists
and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact. . .

8

. . . This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science isunequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads
in the sand. Now, President Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not havetime for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. . .

As usual, political figures improperly associate science as a source of unquestionable authority rather than a successful mode of inquiry.
Secretary Kerry’s unsurprising lack of understanding as to what science is, is duplicated by Gina McCarthy, the head of the US EPA – which is spearheading America’s War on Fossil Fuels – whose education consists of a BS in Anthropology fromthe University of Massachusetts, Boston Branch, and an MS in Environmental HealthEngineering, Planning and Policy from Tufts University.
By now we all know that climate change is driven in large part by carbon pollution† and it leads to more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods.
We are way past any further discussion or debate. Scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lungcancer. So, unless you want to debate that point, don’t debate about climatechange any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act. That responsibility right now is crystal clear. And that is why we have taken action.
. . . the science has spoken on this. A low-carbon future is inevitable. We’re sending exactly the right signals on what, at least EPA believes to be, a future of lower
pollution that is essential for public health and the environment, that EPA’s notjust authorised but responsible to acknowledge and push towards.

Of course, some political figures skip any embarrassing pretenses concerning science and move directly to their agenda. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary ofUN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change has said:
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves thetask of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic
development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

Ms. Figueres is not alone in taking this approach. Pope Francis’ closest adviser
castigated conservative climate change sceptics in the United States, blaming capitalism for their views. Speaking with journalists, Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga
criticised certain ‘movements’ in the United States that have preemptively come out
in opposition to Francis’s planned encyclical on climate change.
The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that
doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to giveup their profits.

It is difficult to know whether the statements of prominent political figures represents
dishonesty, ignorance or both.
†

Her conflation of carbon and carbon dioxide is typical.

9Ms. Figueres may be the most honest. No proposed measures will have any discernible impact on climate (regardless of one’s view of the physics) unless one rolls
back the industrial revolution everywhere and permanently – and even then significant impact on global climate is dubious. Of course, no country outside the westernworld would even consider this, though they are perfectly happy to endorse the efforts of the West to do so.
A constant feature of the public presentation of the issue is the exploitation of
public ignorance. A large poster appearing in the Paris Metro showed the World
Wildlife Fund’s signature panda leading young people in mass demonstration (intentionally mimicking the storming of the Bastille) calling for the elimination of carbon
dioxide. Presumably these young people have never heard of photosynthesis and failto realise that advanced forms of life would largely cease at levels of carbon dioxide
less than about 150 parts per million. 21
So where does the issue of global warming stand? In retrospect, we are confronting three rather different narratives.
The first I would term the IPCC Working Group I narrative. This narrative, while
broadly supportive of the proposition that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations
are a serious concern, nevertheless, is relatively open about the uncertainties andeven contradictions associated with this position, and its public pronouncements
tend to be vague, with ample room for denial, carefully avoiding catastrophist hyperbole while also avoiding outright rejection of such hyperbole. The first narrativeis very much the narrative of many of the major supporters of the global warming
agenda.
The second narrative is that of what are referred to as ‘sceptics.’ To an extent not
generally recognised, there is considerable overlap with the first narrative. Thus, although sceptics might agree that alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early
19th century, they are also aware that alpine glaciers were largely absent during theMedieval Warm Period, and that their more recent retreat preceded by well over a
century the period when anthropogenic greenhouse warming became moderately
significant. Moreover, sceptics generally regard the fact that virtually all models ‘runhot’ - in other words their projections for the period 1979 to the present for the mostpart greatly exceed observed warming – strongly supports low climate sensitivity.
They generally believe in testing the physics underlying the positive feedbacks insensitive models rather than averaging models. Sceptics also are much more open
to the numerous known causes of climate change, including long-period ocean circulations, solar variability, and the various impacts of ice, and do not regard carbon
dioxide as the climate’s ultimate ‘control knob.’ The main difference between thesefirst two groups, however, is that the second group openly opposes catastrophism
while the first group does not.
The third narrative is that of the political promoters of climate alarm, including
10

many of the environmental NGOs, and most of the mass media. The promoters of
this narrative also include many of the contributors to Working Group II (impacts)
and Working Group III (mitigation) of the IPCC. The latter generally emphasise alleged
consequences of the worst-case scenarios presented by Working Group I. It is thisnarrative for which the science is largely irrelevant. Few scientists will endorse thenotion that the planet is at risk, though this is standard fare for the catastrophists. It
is also this narrative that invariably claims virtually unanimous support. Such claims
generally rely on bogus studies which, moreover, dishonestly conflate the points on
which both the Working Group I and the sceptical narratives agree, with the third
catastrophic narrative. Anyone looking at any statement concerning global warming
will readily identify which narrative is in play. Unfortunately, for most people, the third
narrative is all they will see.
The overwhelming emphasis on the third narrative, has very serious implications
for proposed policies alleged to deal with global warming, such as the restriction ofaccess to electricity for the 1.3 billion human beings currently without it, and the increased poverty for billions more, with obvious implications for health and longevity,
not to mention foregoing the well-established agricultural benefits of added carbon
dioxide,22 a chemical essential to life as we know it rather than a pollutant. ‡ It is clearthat the issue of climate does constitute an emergency. However, as is so often thecase, the emergency does not arise from science and technology, but rather from politics. It is worth examining whether science can play a role in the mitigation of thisemergency. It is doubtful whether the answer will consist in research grants. However, science has much at stake. Its hard-earned raison d’etre as our most effective
tool for objective assessment is being squandered, and with it, the basis for publictrust and support.
If we do nothing to stop this insanity, science will rightly be regarded as just another racket. This might just be more collateral damage than we can readily afford.

‡

The US Navy regards levels of 5000 ppmv on nuclear submarines as safe; ambient levels are currently 400 ppmv.

11

Notes
1. Medvedev, ZhA. The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko, Columbia University Press, 1969.
2. Lindzen RS. Science and politics: global warming and eugenics. In: R Hahn (ed),Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, Oxford University Press, 1996.
3. http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
4. Ponte L, The Cooling, Prentice-Hall, 1976
5. Manabe S and Wetherald RT. The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on
the climate of a general circulation model, J. Atmos. Sci. 1975; 32: 3. For definitionsof feedback and discussions of water vapour see Lindzen, RS. Climate dynamics andglobal change. Ann. Rev. Fl. Mech. 1993; 26: 353–378.
6. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment: Report of an Ad Hoc Study
Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate Woods Hole, Massachusetts July 23–27, 1979
to the Climate Research Board Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences National Research Council. This is commonly referred to as the Charney Report. JuleCharney was the chairman of the panel.
7. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not changed this range
except for the Fourth Assessment, which increased the lower bound to 2 ◦ C. The Fifth
Assessment brought it back to 1.5 ◦ C while peculiarly, but revealingly, claiming that
there was no basis for preferring one value to another.
8. Tyndall, J. On radiation through the Earth’s atmosphere. Philosophical Magazine
1863; 4(25): 200–206.
9. Arrhenius, S. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of
the ground. Philosophical Magazine 1896; 41: 237–76.
10. Callendar, GS. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on climate. Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 1938; 64: 223-40.
11. Pfeffer, R. (ed) Dynamics of Climate, Pergamon Press.
12. A critical discussion of these models can be found in Lindzen, RS. Dynamics in
Atmospheric Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1990
13. Stevens, BJ. Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing. J. Climate
2015, 705: doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1.
14. Budyko, MI and Izrael YA. In: MI Budyko and YA Izrael (eds), Anthropogenic Climate
Change, Univ. Ariz. Press, 1991: pp. 277–318.
15. Lindzen RS. Science in the public square, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2013; 18, Fall issue.
16. Financial Times, 9 April, 2010
17. Michaels P. Evidence for ‘publication bias’ concerning global warming in Scienceand Nature. Energy & Environment 2008; 19: 287–301
18. For example: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climatechange/climategate-emails.pdf and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/.
1319. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
20. Boston Globe, 13 February 2007
21. Strictly, parts per million by volume.
22. Goklany IM. Carbon dioxide: The good news. Global Warming Policy Foundation,
GWPF Report 18, 2015. Available from http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/
2015/10/benefits1.pdf.

GWPF ESSAYS
1 Nigel Lawson
2 Peter Lee
3 Matt Ridley
4 Richard Lindzen

The Trouble With Climate Change
Ethics and Climate Change Policy
The Climate Wars and the Damage to Science
Global Warming and the Irrelevance of Science

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party thinktank and a registered educational charity which, while openminded on
the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about thecosts and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.
Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic
and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliableeconomic analysis and advice. Above all we seek to inform the media,
politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in generaland on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time.
The key to the success of the GWPF is the trust and credibility that we haveearned in the eyes of a growing number of policy makers, journalists andthe interested public. The GWPF is funded overwhelmingly by voluntary
donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In
order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts
from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in anenergy company.
Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its trustees, its
Academic Advisory Council members or its directors.

Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation
For further information about GWPF or a print copy of this report,
please contact:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
55 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL
T 0207 3406038 M 07553 361717
www.thegwpf.org
Registered in England, No 6962749
Registered with the Charity Commission, No 1131448