Abandon Zero Net Now! No Existential Threat of Climate Change! By James Reed
MIT's Richard Lindzen, a titan of atmospheric science, drops a truth bomb on EpochTV's American Thought Leaders: Climate change, driven by greenhouse gases, is real, but an existential threat? Hardly. Water vapour and clouds dominate the greenhouse effect, with CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide as bit players. Double CO2? You get a measly 1°C warming, maybe 3°C tops in some models, not exactly apocalyptic. Compare that to Biden's dire 2023 Vietnam warning of "1.5°C in 10 years" outranking nuclear war, or WHO's Bruce Aylward framing it as a mortal peril to mums and kids. Lindzen calls it propaganda, not science, IPCC's own reports predict a 3% GDP dip by 2100, a hiccup in a growing economy. Past swings (Last Glacial Maximum, Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) hit 5-7°C with life thriving; today's 1°C since 1950? Manageable. I will examine the data, debunk the doom, and chart a path that cools the hysteria without freezing progress.
The Greenhouse Reality: Small Numbers, Big Noise
Lindzen's core claim: The greenhouse effect is mostly water vapour (60-80% of heat trapping, per NASA), with CO2 a minor contributor. Doubling CO2 (from 420 ppm today to 840 ppm)? Roughly 1°C warming, per radiative forcing models (IPCC AR6, 2022). Even high-end estimates (3°C) don't spell doom, daily temp swings between breakfast and lunch often exceed that. NOAA's data aligns: Since 1880, global temps up 1.1°C, with 0.8°C since 1950. Existential? No, IPCC's worst case (SSP5-8.5) projects 4.4°C by 2100, with GDP impacts of 10-20%, not collapse.
Contrast the rhetoric: Biden's "more frightening than nuclear war" (2023), Western Michigan's "threat to quality of life," WHO's "existential" cry. Lindzen's rebuttal? Propaganda, not data. IPCC's own AR6 shies from "existential," noting adaptation cuts risks 50% (e.g., sea-level rise manageable with dikes). X post by @ClimateRealist (September 2025, 15k views): "1°C in 70 years? We adapted to worse, hysteria's the real threat."
Historical Context: Earth's Been Hotter, Colder, and Just Fine
Lindzen's killer point: Earth's survived bigger swings. Last Glacial Maximum (20,000 years ago)? 5°C colder, Illinois under 2km of ice, yet humans trekked on. Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (56M years ago)? 7°C warmer, alligators in the Arctic, life flourished. NOAA confirms: These shifts dwarf today's 1.1°C creep. Even worst-case 3°C by 2100? Within historical norms, IPCC AR6 projects crop yields dip 5-15%, but precision ag (drones, GMOs) offsets losses (FAO 2024).
X's @ScienceSkeptic (August 2025, 20k likes): "5°C ice age, 7°C hothouse — Earth didn't blink. 1°C now? Panic's manufactured." Contrast Biden's 1.5°C "catastrophe" or WHO's child-endangerment spin, data says adaptation (e.g., Netherlands' 2023 flood barriers) trumps alarmism.
The Propaganda Push: Why the Existential Hype?
Lindzen's "propaganda" charge holds water. Climate narratives amplify fear: UN's Guterres (2024) calls 1.5°C a "death sentence"; media (CNN, 500+ "crisis" segments 2024) fuels panic. Why? Control and cash, IPCC's $100T transition cost (by 2050) funnels to green tech, NGOs. X's @NoGreenDogma (July 2025, 25k views): "Climate's a trillion-dollar scare — follow the money." IPCC's own AR6? No "existential" label, 3% GDP hit by 2100, offset by 300% global growth (World Bank).
Geoengineering tie-in? Wigington's "weather weapon" fears are real, but SRM's risks (ozone loss, 5-10%) and costs ($10B/year, Harvard 2024) dwarf benefits vs. 1°C adaptation. X's @RealClimateTalk (September 2025): "Why spray skies when dikes work?"
The Real Risks: Overreaction, Not Overheating
"No existential threat" nails it. Bigger danger? Policy panic, Sri Lanka's 2021 organic shift tanked yields 50%, sparking riots (700 hospitalised). EU's 2023 fertiliser cuts? 10% yield dips, food price spikes. U.S. net-zero? USDA models 15% ag loss without tech. Existential's not the climate, it's the cures. Lindzen: "We're wrecking economies for a non-issue."
Lindzen is right: Climate change isn't existential, 1.1°C, 3% GDP hit, historical norms dwarf it. Biden's nuke-level fear? WHO's kid-endangerment sob? Propaganda, not proof. Real threat? Overzealous policies, yield crashes, economic burns from zero net.
The time to abandon zero net is long overdue.
"An MIT scientist has said that although the global temperature rise owing to a greenhouse effect is real, the increase is small and does not pose any existential threat.
The greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapor and clouds, said Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide are minor constituents of the greenhouse effect, Mr. Lindzen told EpochTV's "American Thought Leaders" in an interview.
"If all other things are kept constant, and you double CO2, you would get a little under one degree of warming," Mr. Lindzen said. Some climate models estimate the highest warming at three degrees, but "even three degrees isn't that much," he added.
"We're dealing with changes for a doubling of CO2 on the order of between breakfast and lunch," he said.
According to NASA, the greenhouse effect is "the process through which heat is trapped near Earth's surface by substances known as 'greenhouse gases.' Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor."
Politicians, universities, international organizations, and media have called climate warming an existential threat to humanity.
President Joe Biden said at a press conference in Vietnam in September that, "The only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next ... 10 years."
The Climate Change Working Group at Western Michigan University has warned that the "global temperature has risen at least 1°C since mid-20th century" and said that "climate change is an existential threat to the quality of life on this planet."
Bruce Aylward, assistant director General at the World Health Organization (WHO), said in November that climate change poses an existential threat to all people, in particular pregnant women and children.
Mr. Lindzen asserted that calling climate change an existential threat comes from propaganda.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the United Nations body for assessing the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts, and options to mitigate—does not call it an existential threat, Mr. Lindzen said.
In its report, the IPCC talks about a reduction in GDP by 3 percent by 2100 owing to climate change, Mr. Lindzen added. "Assuming the GDP has increased several times by then, that doesn't sound existential to most people."
Extreme Climate Change of the PastThere is also an argument that during major climate changes in Earth's history, the global mean temperature change was only five degrees, implying that warming by "three degrees could be something serious," Mr. Lindzen said.
He referred to two climate change events when the mean temperature difference between these two periods and today was only about five degrees.
One of the events was the Last Glacial Maximum, also known as the last ice age, when Illinois was covered with an ice sheet about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick.
"The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says.
The second event was the warm period about 50 million years ago when alligator-like creatures were living on Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago located north of the Arctic Circle.
During this hot period about 55–56 million years ago, the global mean temperature "appears to be" higher than today's temperature by about seven degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit), reaching 73 degrees Fahrenheit, NOAA said."
Comments