Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified

By willowt // 2025-05-03

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

On April 28, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT) and physicist Dr. William Happer (Princeton) released a groundbreaking paper dismantling the foundational premise of global climate policy: that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary driver of catastrophic warming. Their findings, supported by decades of radiation physics research, conclude that current CO2 levels have minimal remaining capacity to trap heat and that efforts to eliminate fossil fuels – central to the Net Zero agenda – are scientifically unfounded and economically perilous. The research arrives amid growing scrutiny of climate policies, as U.S. President Donald Trump's administration moves to repeal regulations based on flawed models.

The science of CO2 saturation: Debunking the greenhouse gas threat

Lindzen and Happer's analysis hinges on a fundamental physical principle: CO2's heat-trapping capacity diminishes as its atmospheric concentration rises – a concept known as saturation. At today’s level of approximately 420 parts per million (ppm), they argue, additional CO2 contributes negligible warming. Applied to climate models, this means even achieving Net Zero emissions globally by 2050 would suppress temperature rises by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F at most. "The data shows that CO2 is now a weak greenhouse gas. The notion that it's 'the main driver of climate change' is scientifically indefensible," said Happer, an emeritus Princeton professor. The pair also reject claims linking CO2 to extreme weather, emphasizing that natural climate variability and other factors dominate weather patterns. Historical temperature records from the EPA itself, they note, reveal that U.S. heatwaves in the 1930s exceeded today’s trends, yet CO2 levels were far lower. Lindzen criticized climate models for consistently overestimating warming by 30 – 50 percent, concluding, "They're not just wrong – they're dangerously misleading."

Net zero policies: Economic and agricultural concerns

Happer and Lindzen warn that Net Zero mandates could devastate economies and food security. Eliminating fossil fuels would disrupt critical infrastructure, including nitrogen-based fertilizers, which rely on natural gas and nourish half the global population. "More CO2 means more food,” said Lindzen. Doubling atmospheric CO2 to 800 ppm could boost global crop yields by 60 percent, particularly in drought-prone regions – yet such growth would be stifled by policies demonizing emissions. The economists' cost-benefit analyses further underscore their critique: Virtually no measurable climate benefit justifies the trillion-dollar subsidies for wind and solar farms. "This isn't science; it's a wealth transfer scam," Happer asserted, citing the $500 billion U.S. climate spending program. Meanwhile, the poorest populations – reliant on affordable energy – face drastic consequences as fossil fuels vanish.

The consensus myth and pressure on climate dissenters

The pair challenge the oft-cited "97 percent consensus" on climate change as a political tool. "Science isn't determined by majority vote," Happer said. Citing physicist Richard Feynman's dictum that "it only takes one experiment to prove a theory wrong," he noted climate models’ consistent failure to match real-world temperatures. Scientists who dare question orthodoxy often face professional exile. Climate scientist Judith Curry, former chair at Georgia Tech, lost funding and credibility after retracting a study linking hurricanes to warming. Similarly, Nobel laureate John Clauser had a 2023 IMF speech canceled after denouncing climate alarmism. "Academic pressure to conform is extraordinary," Lindzen said. "In 1990, no MIT faculty called themselves climate scientists – now it's a lucrative career path for anyone eager to ride the grant money."

A call for scientific integrity: Rejecting "fake consensus" in policy

Lindzen and Happer urge President Trump to issue an executive order mandating federal agencies adopt strict evidence-based policies, free from consensus-driven spin. They highlight the U.S. Supreme Court’s State Farm ruling, which invalidates regulations ignoring critical data or cherry-picking results. "The IPCC and EPA have excluded vital studies showing climate models are irredeemably flawed," Lindzen said. "This isn't skepticism – it's basic rigor." For the scientists, the stakes are existential. "Net Zero is a global suicide pact," Happer warned, pointing to rising energy poverty and stymied development. "CO2 isn't an enemy – it's life's elixir. Let markets, not politicians, choose our future."

A crossroads for climate policy – evidence over alarm

As governments race to fulfill Paris Agreement pledges, Lindzen and Happer's critique exposes a paradigm in crisis. Their focus on CO2 saturation and economic impacts challenges the very framework of environmental regulation. Whether policymakers heed their call for rigor or cling to consensus will shape not only climate action but the futures of billions relying on affordable energy. "The scientific method survives," Lindzen concluded. "Truth always does." Sources include: ClimateDepot.com Clintel.org TheEpochTimes.com