MIT Professor: Global Warming is a ‘Religion’

Dr. Richard LindzenBy Michael Bastasch

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

Read the rest at Daily Caller.

34 Responses to MIT Professor: Global Warming is a ‘Religion’

  1. Paul September 4, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Fact: The earth is warming.
    Fact: CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 1500 years.
    The longer you deny it, the worse the problem will become. Put on your big- boy pants and accept it. (Comment edited by moderator.)

    • Neilio September 5, 2013 at 5:50 am #

      Is it a fact that the Earth is warming? It has been warming since the end of the LIA, but for the last 15 years it has not. I suppose it is all in where you begin reading the chart. If you start at the end of the LIA to the present there is warming. But if you start your chart 15 years ago, there is none.
      So, how is the “warming” caused by CO2? If the theory were true and correct, we would see temperatures correlate with the 400ppm current level of atmospheric CO2, but they do not correlate.

      Did you know that during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today?

      How can that be?

      We don’t have a dress code here at GCS. You don’t need pants to participate. Big boy, or otherwise. What you really should be wearing is a thinking cap.

      Here is a fact. CO2 concentrations have always lagged temperature changes in the climactic record. Which means that there is no way that CO2 has the effect on temperature that you’ve been led to believe it does.

      It’s all a lie. You’ve been misled. That’s what you get when you rely on sources complicit in the scam.

      • Tristan September 10, 2013 at 9:33 am #

        Neilio, you have hit on a very important point there. CO2 levels normally lag behind the warming. Right now the CO2 levels are ahead of the temperature change. Our emissions are driving an unnatural global warming. The problem is that this scenario has never happened before. We are in very scary unknown territory.

        • Neilio September 10, 2013 at 9:55 pm #


          Hey, Tristan. I don’t think you are someone that does any kind of research at any depth. If you were, you would not say something so inept.

          It’s ok. I get it. You have been bombarded with this message from school, Liberal news media, government institutions, pretty much every angle. Why wouldn’t you think it’s true? You have probably heard it your entire life. It is probably a basic fact of life for you. The sky is blue, water is wet, and we are causing the globe to warm at a dangerous rate. Right?

          Do some research for your self! I’m sorry if you’re hearing this for the first time, and I don’t want to be the one to tell you, but, you can’t trust school, news media (Left or Right), govt. institutions, or anybody, really, to be honest to you. Everyone lies, and has their own agenda. And most of the time your best interests are not included in those agendas. Proceed with caution! And good luck.

          • Tristan April 9, 2014 at 1:12 am #

            Neilio you are deluding yourself and others, but like all of the climate change denying faithful, you will refuse to look at the hard facts. You will continue to cherry pick statistics rather than analyse the entire data sheet, you will continue to misinterperet and misrepresent results, you will continue to listen to people with your own opinion, rather than listening to everyone’s opinions, before forming your own, and nothing I say will ever change your opinion, because you are more interested in protecting your ego than finding the truth.

            There is nothing I want in the world more than to be wrong about climate change. I have read and tried to believe much of propaganda from oil companies, the goverments who say that it is “crap” (my own Prime Minister in Australia). At the end of the day, 97% of the worlds scientific population are in agreement. The data is out there if you want to read it.

            Humans activity is driving global warming!

            Unfortunately there are enough people with their heads buried in the sand, such as yourself Neilio (unless you are being paid by an oil company to write this garbage), to ensure that we will not act on climate change.

            The climate change deniers have probably won the war of words. I hope in 50 years you look back with pride at the lies you spread to ensure that the human race sat and watched as profit driven mega companies became insanely wealthy by destroying our planet.

            Neilio you have sold yourself and the rest of the human race out to greed.

          • Neilio April 9, 2014 at 5:28 am #

            From your site’s about page. “One thing you can be sure of is that I will always endeavour to explain both sides of an argument as I shine an impartial light into some of our societies darker corners.”
            Sorry, but nothing about your post to me sounds impartial at all. It’s funny that you claim impartiality yet you are evidently partial to the side of the warmists. And can we please, please stop with the 97% percent garbage? That percentage has been fictitious since its first utterance, and remains fictitious.
            You want some hard facts? How about these?
            •Greenhouse gases are a mere 0.4392 percent of total atmospheric gases.
            •CO2 is only 0.039 percent of total atmospheric gases.
            •CO2 is less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gases.
            •Water vapor is 95 percent of total greenhouse gases.
            •CO2 levels currently at 390 parts per million (ppm) lowest in 600 million years.
            •Levels were as high as 9000 ppm over last 600 million years. Average levels for the last 300 million years is approximately 1200 ppm.
            •In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
            •Even if CO2 is causing temperature, doubling or tripling only raises temperature by a very small amount. This is known as climate sensitivity. The IPCC invoked a positive feedback that doesn’t exist to overcome the problem.
            •Carbon and CO2 are terms used interchangeably, but are completely different things. Carbon is an element, and CO2 is a gas.
            •CO2 is essential to life on the planet. Reduce the levels and plants suffer. Plants are most efficient at approximately 1000-1200 ppm as research and use of those levels in greenhouses attest. Plants are malnourished at 390 ppm.
            •Fewer plants means less oxygen; no plants means no oxygen and no life on Earth.
            •IPCC define climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.” This makes human impact the primary purpose of the research, but you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.
            •As a result, the IPCC only consider nine “radiative forcings”, but admit its “level of scientific understanding” is high in only two of them. Even that claim is incorrect; it is low and medium-low in the other seven.
            •They estimate these cause 1.6 watts per square meter, which is much lower than most natural forcings.
            •Global temperatures increased from 1990 on because they reduced the number of weather records used.
            •All modern temperature records have been adjusted to lower the old temperatures, and thus increase the slope of the increase in temperature.
            •The “hockey stick” graph rewrote history by erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. This was achieved by the false assumption that tree rings area measure of temperatures, and by inappropriate statistical methods and analysis.
            •Current temperatures and weather patterns are well within long-term normal patterns.
            •The IPCC does not make predictions – they make projections.
            •Every projection to date has been wrong, well above the actual trend and in the wrong direction as cooling continues. They are wrong because their computer models have temperature increase with a CO2 increase, which doesn’t happen in reality.
            •Global temperature has declined since at least 2000 while CO2 has increased. If the IPCC was correct and it is overriding all other mechanisms, the increase should not happen. This is why senior IPCC member Kevin Trenberth said in a leaked email of Wed, 14 Oct 2009, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
            Maybe you should endeavor to check those facts, or do you think I just “cherry picked” all of that?

        • s November 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

          Fact, if “CO2 levels normally lag behind the warming”, then CO2 is logically the consequence, not cause of warming; correlation does not imply causation. Yet it’s sufficient for two-bit crooks who have the gaul to identify themselves as scientists, to pull the wool over the ignorant masses. CO2 is now lagging most likely because as temperature begins to drop, so eventually will CO2; most likely simply due to the fact that as the solubility of CO2 in the worlds oceans are inversely correlated with their temperature, as whatever is driving world temperature (likely being related to our sun), CO2 levels will follow. The crooks and fools have got it backward, but as it don’t fit their agenda, they’d rather continue to lie as long as the getting is good.

    • Matt September 9, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

      Paul: accept it, Neilio figuratively spanked your hiney. Come back down to Earth…we miss you.

  2. Paul September 5, 2013 at 10:54 am #

    “Fact:” Then you refer to a theory at best. I would argue it’s a hypothesis in fact. Odd at best.
    Oh yes. The obligatory insults, leftists need, to make some kind of point. Quite scientific.

    • Neilio September 9, 2013 at 10:48 am #

      Do you think I’m a Leftist? Can you set this guy straight RNH? Jeeez! It is a fact that CO2 lags temperature in the geologic record. Do some research! That is not a theory. You should not trust anyone on this subject. Do your own research, check out the claims. Look into computer models, and find out just how reliable they are, or are not, and look into just how much of the theory is computer models. Then try to find out just how much we don’t know about the atmosphere, then you might begin to be able to see the nature of the lies you’ve been forced to swallow.
      And that is not an insult. Ignorance is not a fault, it is a correctable condition.

      • Mustapha Rashiduddin October 7, 2013 at 12:36 am #

        Hi, I’m not here to debate with you, just tell me how to research these things, as I don’t know how, I mean, if these people are skewing the facts as you say, the data presented might be skewed to begin with right? Since they are the ones who are in charge of the media and the majority of the scientists and whatnot…So how do I go about this? Where is the third party who’s data isn’t skewed? or do I have to collect my own data? and what kind of scientific knowledge would I need to begin with to interpret it?


        • Neilio October 8, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

          What you do is type what you want in the search field and press search. You will then have a whole bunch of things to choose from. You then read all that you can and decide for yourself. Easy!

  3. Laura R September 6, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    Paul, how limited is your view. Yes, the earth has been warming for the last 1,500 years. Have you driven through Colorado and seen vertical walls of shell at 8,000 ft elevation? Have you looked at the temperature changes the earth has endured? The earth has been changing for 4.5 million years. Should we be concerned about the impact on man kind? Absolutely. Is it caused by man? Maybe. However, who caused the change for the last 4.5 million years?

    • Neilio September 9, 2013 at 10:50 am #

      Thanks! That is a very reasoned view.

      • Rob N. Hood September 12, 2013 at 5:52 pm #

        Water I was drinking just squirted out my nose- thanks a lot Neil…!

        *choking, gasping, but appreciative of the great Neilio humor

  4. John Francis September 7, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

    It is interesting to view th 3000 yrs of earth’s temps gotten from Sargasso Sea
    sediment. Dr. Art Robinson- Cal Tech – I believe- a peer of a Nobel Prize scientist.
    It is a Sine Wave. No fraud, just science.
    We can heat up urban areas and pollute, but we are puny when it comes to the earth at large.
    Check Dr Robinson’s info. It will open your eyes.
    The powerful international group that wants a golden billion (or less) will stop at nothing to decrease population.
    Global Warming Religion is having that effect.
    VERY powerful group.
    Would think they are behind attempt to redefine marriage also.
    Wake up Americans before it is real ugly

    • Neilio September 9, 2013 at 10:34 am #

      The group of which you speak is the Club of Rome. If it’s not, then it’s connected to the Club of Rome I would wager. Look it up.
      I really like what you said, “We can heat up urban areas and pollute, but we are puny when it comes to the earth at large.” That is spot on.

    • Bob B September 21, 2013 at 12:00 am #

      It the warmists really are passionate in their cause for global population reduction, then why don’t they just start with what they can control and end their own lives? They would then be true devotee’s to their philosophy and would even be considered martyrs to their cause.

  5. Rob N. Hood September 12, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    And pray tell how the global warming “scare/scam” is reducing (or going to reduce) the population?? Really I’d like to know, and Neil let JF try it first before you hog up the blog for once.

    • Neilio September 13, 2013 at 6:13 am #

      Well, the population discussion isn’t really on my radar. But I do know some things about that. I’ll let JF run with that if he wants to.

  6. Rob N. Hood September 13, 2013 at 6:55 pm #

    The only thing I found did NOT explain anything about population control via global climate change.

    • Neilio September 20, 2013 at 3:02 am #

      It’s not that population control is being carried out in the name of climate change. Population control is part of the larger green agenda, that includes the climate change issue.

  7. Rob N. Hood September 21, 2013 at 8:40 am #

    Oh I see. So the “Green agenda” has as its main goal to reduce population. While dubious, of course, let’s assume that’s true. What then are the specific things” are being done to accomplish this fiendish and outrageous goal?

    • Neilio September 21, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

      Planned Parenthood?
      The main goal of the “green agenda” is not population control.
      The main goal of the “green agenda” is control.
      Climate change, and population control are tools that they use to gain political control.
      They are different tools, like comparing a hammer to a T-square.
      I would like to return to the original topic about it being like a religion. And it is in the sense that people who believe it don’t want to hear anything that is remotely negative about that belief.
      Imagine saying to a Christian, that Jesus was just a man, no more, no less. (Not picking on Christians, Christian faith used for example only!)
      They don’t want to hear that.
      It’s the same with global warming. If you tell someone who has invested all of their faith and belief on a course of action determined by a belief that Man is warming the atmosphere with CO2, they will not want to hear that there hasn’t been any warming for 15 years. Or that there were a bunch of yacht owners who got stranded in the frozen Northwest passage this year because they believed that it would be open because of global warming, no, they don’t want to even think it.
      It’s like a trance! Show them a fact and they’ll tell you it can’t be true. There is no critical thinking, and the information is not processed on a rational level. The information is processed on a spiritual level, like most people used to do when they used to pray to God. Now, let’s pray to those trees, or those rocks over there. Or, let’s pray to the Moon. Or let’s pray to Mother Earth.
      I have no problem with people putting their faith in God. That’s what I think faith should be reserved for. The rest is for rational levels of thought.

  8. Happydenialist September 25, 2013 at 3:01 am #

    Global warming is without doubt the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. Sick scientists and scum politicians have at last found a great pony to ride that can massively increase taxes and create huge funds that employ thousands of fraudsters on a journey to seek facts to prove the theorem. And they fail miserably even after many exposes of statistical misinformation. Do the maths – CO2 – a life giving inert gas is not a greenhouse gas and composes 0.035 or 350ppm of the earths “dry gas” makeup – ignores water vapour of course. The fake “experts” tell us that anthropogenic activity has caused a 2% increase in carbon dioxide. So do the maths – 2% of .035 – really? And we are all going to die!!!.

    So evangelical has this “science” become that anyone opening the mouth to decry the fraudsters is branded a “denialist” akin to witch craft or heresy in days gone by.

    How history repeats itself…………………..

  9. Rob N. Hood September 25, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    YOu are a slippery snake as always. Weaving and dodging my points and questions, even to the extent of ignoring your own previous statements. So Planned Parenthood is a part of the conspiracy, or not? Can’t tell by your sudden ambiguousness. Or it’s not “population control” as stated earlier it’s just “control.” Brilliant! Except not, and oh so very disingenuous as always. You guys are just tilting at windmills, and its getting more boring all the time.

  10. anonymous September 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

    I cant believe that so many people still doubt global warming. I was reading an post on a different post is response to neilio saying that if you filled 2 condoms, 1 with air and the other with CO2. That experiment is completely inaccurate, because co2 does not absorb heat. Ever heard of the greenhouse effect? Let me explain it. There are gasses in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gasses), for the purpose of trapping heat from the sun that would otherwise be reflected into space. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth gets. Get it now?
    “It has been warming since the end of the LIA, but for the last 15 years it has not.”
    I have seen a graph that over the last say, 2000 years the earth was generally cooling, and started warming sharply since the industrial revolution. The statement that the earth temp has not risen since in the last 15 years is also false; the 11 warmest years on record where in the last 12 years.

    “Did you know that during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today?”
    Temperatures during that period were higher, and sea levels were as well. Most land was located near the tropics, anything north was mostly ocean, there were no polar icecaps.

    So I suggest y’all do your research and stop discrediting people who actually ARE doing their research


    • Neilio October 8, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

      I think you have belief in a popular assumption. The assumption being that “greenhouse” gases trap heat. This is incorrect. When you say heat to someone that knows nothing about heat, they assume that you mean all of the heat. When talking about “greenhouse” gases trapping heat, you are talking about infra-red (IR) radiation. And when you are talking about specific gases, like CO2, the “heat” that interacts with that gas is only several wavelengths of IR.

      As far as trapping heat, that is not precisely what occurs. The several wavelengths of IR are absorbed by the gas molecule, and then are almost instantly re-emitted as heat energy in a form that can warm the other gas molecules that are not so called “greenhouse” gases, such as Oxygen, Nitrogen, and so on. It does not “trap” heat. It basically changes the form of the several wavelengths of IR heat into a form of heat that will conduct into other molecules. If the CO2 molecule did not stop the several wavelengths of IR radiation that it does, then that energy would continue on out into space and wouldn’t warm a thing.

      So what happens when all of the wavelengths of IR that can be absorbed by CO2 are absorbed by CO2? Now remember we are not talking about an infinite number of wavelengths. The Sun radiates a lot of wavelengths of energy. Most of the particles that can cause harm to us are blocked by the magnetic field, and the upper atmosphere. Our atmosphere lets in visible light, most radio waves, and small wavelength ranges of infrared light.

      I’ve always been fascinated by light. When you look at an object, you are not actually seeing the object. You are seeing photons that have just bounced off of the object. When you see a color, you are seeing photons that were not absorbed by that color. Let’s say Red. When you look at something red, that object has absorbed all of the visible wavelengths except for red, which bounces off of the object to reach your eyes. Sorry, I digress.

      Anyway, once all of the wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are absorbed by CO2 you can add as much CO2 as you want after that point and it will not cause more warming because the wavelengths will not penetrate through to interact with the added gas.

      Now there is debate about this, and it is within the debate of forcings on climate so it is something that has not yet been fully explained by “science” yet. But I think, based on what the CO2 level in 1998 was, around 370-380 ppm, to what it is now, just over 400 ppm, and there not being any significant warming during that period, tells me that even if the warming up until 98′ was caused by human production of CO2 the saturation point was reached in or before 1998, and the added CO2 has had no effect since then.

  11. peter December 8, 2013 at 11:09 am #

    Note that co2 is 0.035% (that is 0.00035 in decimal form) by volume. So how can a gas at trace levels be responsible for so much warming? Look up content of Earths atmosphere. There are over 100 different variables that affect climate and this is the only one that counts? The warming is mostly caused by the Sun in my opinon and there is nothing we can do about it. I am an advisory nuclear engineer and physicist and I am not buying a bit of this global warming nonsense.

  12. Chad August 29, 2014 at 1:08 am #

    Wow, comments on global warming, without a mention of the chemtrail blanket of our atmosphere today (look into a flashlight in the night sky to see it). Amazing for such intellect. Also, never a mention of the fact that most heat, by far, comes from the inner earth, and hardly any comes from the sun. The chemtrail blanket is heating the earth regardless of the sun, by trapping the heat the earth radiates. This has nothing at all to do with CO2, but is a man-made fraud to warm in the earth in the name of CO2. Grow some brains.

    • Neilio August 29, 2014 at 6:07 am #

      We are not going to get into the conspiracy theory of “chemtrails” here. My position is that there are no such thing as chemtrails. They are contrails, or condensation trails. They are normal. Maybe normal isn’t the right word. How about a harmless byproduct of compressing air? Tell you what, you put your hands over your mouth and blow real hard. Try to get the pressure in your mouth as high as you can stand it. Then let the pressure off and remove your hands (it’s easier to see if you do this in front of a mirror), you will see a mist in your mouth. That’s condensation it is the exact same thing. Now just imagine how much air is compressed when an aircraft flies through it, or when it goes through a jet turbine. Chemtrails are an urban legend, and people who believe it are misguided, misinformed, and probably of less than average intelligence.
      “Also, never a mention of the fact that most heat, by far, comes from the inner earth, and hardly any comes from the sun.” Um, what? That is just void of reason. Why does it get cold at night then? The reason it’s never mentioned is because it is not a fact!!!! Look up geothermal gradient.


  1. MIT Professor: Like the Earth is Flat, Global Warming is a ‘Religion’ | Global Climate Scam | Telcomil Intl Products and Services - September 30, 2013

    […] See on […]

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.