The liberal narrative about climate change is starting to fall apart thanks to conscientious scientists who have spoken out in face of pressure to toe the alarmist party line.
Dissenting from the supposed consensus of scientists who believe mankind is primarily responsible for climate change, Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology cast doubt on the very existence of said consensus. Indeed, the climatologist argues that the amount of scientists who believe climate change is man-made is much lower than the left and their allies in the media make it out to be.
Speaking to talk show host Bill Frezza on RealClear Radio Hour, Dr. Lindzen claimed that the idea that researchers overwhelmingly agree on climate change has been “propaganda” from the beginning. He said that the media helps push the narrative by saying scientists agree, but never bother telling people what exactly it is that they agree upon.
Since most Americans are unfamiliar with climate science, they feel pressured to accept the claims of personalities purporting to speak on behalf of scientists, allowing the climate change consensus myth to strengthen it’s hold in the minds of citizens.
See more on the next page:
I wonder why un-Truth&in-Action failed to mention that (dr) Richard Lindzen is on the “Payrolls” of the Oil and Gas corporations Lindzen is far more richly rewarded for spreading anti-science than researchers for global warming ever have been : “Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services.” Sort of reminds me of the Emporer who bought invisible clothes….
Since when did science become a matter of consensus?
Y’all are scientifically illiterate morons:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_Randolph/publication/8559153_Evidence_that_climate_change_has_caused_'emergence'_of_tick-borne_diseases_in_Europe/links/542a5a860cf29bbc12678364.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.VtCoyvkrKUk
https://www.wunderground.com/climate/evidence.asp
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/publications/lgt00-2.pdf
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
Hey David Knight. The tobacco companies had scientists that said there was no link between smoking and lung cancer. When other scientists said there was their scientists said they were wrong. Then we saw the heads of the tobacco companies swear under oath that they didn’t know anything about smoking being dangerous and that turned out to be a lie. What do you think the chances are this guy is lying too?
How dare you! Never question! Never challenge the status quo!
At $2,500 a day it would take over 6 months to accrue the money that Hillary gets for one speech. A little perspective is in order.
How many scientists that support climate change are on the weather underground payroll ?
Probably a very tiny percentage vs the ones that are deniers being paid by the fossil fuel companies. This is the second year in a row where we are seeing temps in the 90’s on a regular basis in feb. here ib Cali. last year it was temps in the 100’s in april and may which set records. Climate change is real and it’s man made and it real simple to understand when you realize that in 1800 the population was 1 billion and we are now over 7 billion. By the end of this century we could be over 11 billion. What do you think that is doing to the worlds ecology ?
La is a good example of what mankind can do. Up until the area blew up with growth there wasn’t anything like smog. Then for a long time it still wasn’t a problem. The LA area finally blew up and everybody was driving cars and the next thing we knew it was too dangerous to allow kids to play outside because of the smog. In other words we poisoned ourselves. people warned us but until the kids couldn’t go out and play nobody was willing to do much about it. We no longer have those kinds of p[roblems now because we finally said enough. There were scientists that disputed what the cause of the smog was at first and they were just as wrong as the tobacco scientist were and they are wrong on this too.
Chemical dumps can actually heat up the planet as well. Perhaps they are artificially heating certain areas for carbon taxes… I am sure the Arctic blasting caused melting in the Arctic..