#2397 - Richard Lindzen & William Happer

Richard Lindzen and William Happer discuss concerns surrounding the politicization of climate science and its impact on open debate and scientific progress.

Climate Science Is Politicized, Discouraging Open Debate

Climate Science's "Co2 Cult" Dominates, Ignoring Other Climate Change Factors

Lindzen and Happer argue that the focus on CO2 in current climate science discourse is excessive and ignores other factors like the sun's impact on climate. They note that throughout Earth's history, ice ages and warming periods have not correlated well with CO2 levels. Happer describes the climate science community's singular focus on CO2 as the "phlogiston era of climate science," comparing it to an outdated scientific belief. He also states there's no evidence that CO2 has made any significant difference to rising sea levels, which began around 1800.

Questioning Climate Change Often Leads To Hostility, Censorship, and Consequences For Scientists

Rogan compares the adherence to climate change beliefs to a "religious-like" or "cult-like" phenomenon. Questioning the climate change narrative can lead to being labeled a "climate change denier," which Lindzen points out is indicative of the hostility faced by scientists who challenge accepted views. Rogan and Lindzen discuss the pressure on scientists to adhere to the notion that the science of climate change is settled and requires immediate action. They note skepticism among ordinary people and suggest a disconnect between political narratives and public opinion.

Politicians embrace climate narratives as it gives them power and influences policies, which Lindzen sees as an incentive that disincentivizes open debate. Happer notes that climate science is "completely politicized," and the inability to ask questions is a bad sign. He also mentions a consensus in the climate community without consequences for failed predictions, deviating from normal accountability standards.

Climate Science Politicization Hampers Progress and Study

Lindzen suggests that the focus on extreme weather over the last 15-20 years, as opposed to temperature, is a sign that the climate change narrative is "fake." He refers to frequent use of once-in-a-hundred-year events to scare people and points out the IPCC's inability to find evidence linking climate change to extreme weather events, suggesting that the IPCC's viewpoints are influenced by political interests.

Rogan and Lindzen highlight narratives around carbon emissions and how questioning scientists are silenced or intimidated. Lindzen recalls when the editor of a major science magazine, Marsha McNutt, stated she would not publish articles questioning clim ...

The discussion highlights that narratives surrounding climate change may be influenced by external factors such as funding and political interests, with an implied incentive to support the predominant climate change narrative to secure funding.

Government Funding Incentivizes Support For Climate Change Narrative

A consensus is that government funding agencies should maintain an open view toward all subjects and not establish rules that prevent questioning.

Securing Funding Often Takes Priority Over Challenging Accepted Climate Views

Richard Lindzen and Willam Happer discuss how the vast financial stakes in the energy sector can influence the narrative and discourage challenges to the prevailing climate change views. This implies that securing funding can take priority over raising challenging questions. Joe Rogan and Lindzen further suggest that the enthusiasm for climate change narratives might be driven by opportunities for funding, creating a significant incentive not to "rock the boat" in academia due to funding considerations.

Feedback Loop: Climate Alarm Funds Narratives

Rogan and Lindzen delve into the possibility of a feedback loop where climate alarmism leads to increased funding, which in turn supports the climate change narrative. Rogan points out the financial motivation to perpetuate climate narratives, suggesting that funding and financial incentives could bias support. Initiatives like green new deals and green energy projects can become a PR campaign for those looking to profit.

Academics Questioning Dominant Climate Views Face Marginalization and Funding Loss

Happer touches on the marginalization faced by academics who do not adhere to the dominant CO2-centric narrative and miss out on funding opportunities. He suggests opening up funding to alternate theories that do not focus exclusively on CO2. Happer also indicates t ...

Richard Lindzen and others delve into the intricate nature of climate modeling and prediction, revealing the challenges and skepticism that arise from the complexity of the Earth's climate system.

The Climate System Is Complex, Chaotic, and Ever-Changing, Defying Straightforward Modeling and Prediction

The complexity and variability of the climate system are under intense scrutiny as experts like Richard Lindzen demonstrate that global mean temperature has fluctuated, moving from a cooling period in the 1930s to warming after the 1970s. Lindzen indicates that the Earth's temperature has never been stationary, a sentiment echoed by Joe Rogan. The concept of a static global temperature is put into question, along with what is generally meant by "global temperature."

Lindzen argues that climate change is predominantly regional rather than global, where factors like proximity to the ocean can influence regional climates over various time scales. He posits that the global mean temperature concept, though useful for studying other planets, may not be particularly useful for understanding Earth's climate. Further, he explains that most of the complex topics covered in advanced graduate courses, such as hydrodynamic instability, are not easily accessible to the general public.

William Happer and Rogan concur that verifying such complex scientific information is difficult for the average person, and Happer gives background on the Navier-Stokes equation. This equation, crucial for representing fluid motion in the atmosphere and oceans, is nonlinear and complex, encapsulating the struggle in modeling such a complex system.

Modeling Climate Using Partial Differential Equations Is Limited

Lindzen highlights the intricacies of climate models that employ partial differential equations to discretize fluid mechanics and to understand changes with distance and time. He recognizes that the people who work with these models do so meticulously, while also noting that the models often present incorrect outcomes, revealing a critical limitation in current climate modeling.

"Butterfly Effect" Makes Long-Term Climate Forecasting Unreliable

The unpredictability and long-term forecasting challenges of the climate system are further emphasized in the conversation, albeit without an explicit mention of the "Butterfly Effect." Instead, Lindzen references Edward Lorenz's chaos theory, suggesting that small changes in a complex system can lead to unpredictable large-scale outcomes. Happer illustrates this by mentioning the common allegory of a butterfly's flaps possibly leading to hurricanes years later, while Rogan disagrees, arguing against such simplistic cause-effect re ...

Through a conversation including Joe Rogan, Richard Lindzen, and William Happer, the discussion sheds light on historical and present examples of how science can be distorted by ideology.

Examples of Science Corrupted by Ideological Agendas, Like Eugenics, Demonstrate the Dangers Of Attaching Politics To Science

Rogan, Lindzen, and Happer delve into the effects of sociopolitical narratives on the public's scientific understanding, akin to how ideologies like eugenics misrepresented scientific conclusions in historical examples.

Early 20th-Century Eugenics, Embraced by Academics and Policymakers, Led To Discriminatory Laws Until Discredited by Nazi Embrace

The eugenics movement serves as a prime example of how science can be corrupted by ideological agendas. Happer references the movement's support from esteemed figures and institutions, such as the presidents of Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Alexander Graham Bell. The eugenics movement, which was based on the belief that the gene pool was being diluted by other ethnic groups, was propagated through scholarly articles and was widely accepted until the Nazis took it to its extreme.

Lindzen mentions that the eugenics movement in the United States had practical consequences, such as the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. This act limited immigration, effectively restricting immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy, and China. It was also used by Roosevelt to prevent Jewish refugees from escaping Europe during the lead-up to World War II. Lindzen adds that it wasn’t seen as fringe, and had the Nazis not adopted eugenics, the movement might have continued to progress in America.

Ideological Capture in Climate Science Funding and Narrative

Rogan reflects on parallels between the historical example of eugenics and concerns about climate science being influenced by ideological agendas. He notes that the widespread acceptance and implementation of eugenics by policymakers and institutions ultimately led to its discredit after the Nazi regime put it into horrific practice.

Lindzen discusses how the environmental movement's focus has shifted from saving species like whales to a concentration on the global mean temperature in climate science, suggesting that the topic of climate change might be influenced by economic interests. Lindzen implies climate science might be subject to ideological capture, as shown by resistance to debate and the presentation of climate trends described with unwarranted certainty.

Happer suggests political motives influenced his dismissal from a bureaucratic position, hinting at ideological interference in climate science funding and narrative. Lindzen and Happer discuss how climate change discourse has become politically polarized within academia, reflecting concerns around ideological capture influencing the scientific narrative and funding within climate science.

Objectivity in Science Challenged by Echo Chambers and Social Media Narratives

The conversation between Rogan, Lindzen, and Happer touches on how echo chambers and social media narratives might impact objectivity in science, though these specific terms ar ...