The Lindzen-Happer Paper Confirms What the Evidence Already Proved, CO₂ Is a Weak Gas, the Consensus Was Manufactured, the Models Don’t Work, and Every Dollar Spent on Net Zero Was Stolen from You. The Press Knew. They Said Nothing.
Link to Lindzen-Happer Study: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lindzen-Happer-GHGs-and-Fossil-Fuels-Climate-Physics-2025-06-07.pdf
Author’s Note on This Revised Edition
This article was originally published on January 2, 2026 under the title “The Great Climate Robbery: From Earth Day 1970 to a $400 Billion Fraud.” That article documented the institutional architecture, from Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome through the consulting-industrial complex, that transformed reasonable environmental concern into history’s most sophisticated wealth extraction mechanism.
Since that publication, a landmark scientific paper has emerged that demands this article be fundamentally expanded and rewritten. On April 28, 2025, Richard Lindzen (Professor Emeritus of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and William Happer, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University, published Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuels: Climate Science, a comprehensive dismantling of the scientific premises underlying every Net Zero regulation, every climate subsidy, every ESG mandate, and every consulting-validated renewable energy project announced in the last three decades.
Their paper proves, at the level of fundamental radiation physics, that CO₂ is now a weak greenhouse gas, that climate models systematically fail the scientific method, that the 97% consensus is “entirely discredited,” and that the IPCC publishes government opinion rather than science. Combined with the institutional evidence documented in the original article and in my forthcoming book, The Impossible Consensus, it forms a prosecutorial case from which there is no credible scientific escape.
But this revised edition addresses an equally damning question that the original article left unspoken: Where was the press?
Two emeritus professors from MIT and Princeton, career physicists with over 400 combined peer-reviewed publications and special expertise in the very radiation physics that governs how CO₂ affects Earth’s atmosphere, published a paper proving that the entire scientific foundation of Net Zero policy is false. In any other domain of science, this would be front-page news worldwide. A paper of equivalent credentials challenging pharmaceutical safety, nuclear plant engineering, or aviation design would trigger immediate congressional hearings, regulatory reviews, and wall-to-wall media coverage.
Instead, silence. Or worse, dismissal.
This silence is not accidental. It is the product of documented, systematic media capture that constitutes the final and most essential pillar of the $400 billion climate fraud. Without the press functioning as an enforcement mechanism for manufactured consensus, labeling dissenting MIT and Princeton professors as “deniers,” modifying editorial standards to declare complex atmospheric physics “settled,” and structuring advertising revenue dependencies around ESG-committed corporate clients, the fraud could not have survived its first encounter with scientific scrutiny.
The Associated Press rewrote its journalism standards to characterize climate science as “settled” rather than “developing.” Reuters required reporters to present the consensus position as established fact while characterizing dissenting scientists as “climate deniers.” Scientific American abandoned traditional scientific neutrality to promote consensus positions while suppressing dissenting research. These are not allegations. They are documented editorial policy changes that transformed America’s newsrooms from institutions of inquiry into guard dogs for a manufactured orthodoxy.
The original article proved who built the fraud and how. The Lindzen-Happer paper proves why the science was always a lie. This revised edition proves that the press knew, or should have known, and chose complicity over journalism. Together, these three dimensions form an indictment not merely of an industry, but of every institution that a free society depends upon to protect citizens from coordinated theft.
THE PHYSICS: CO₂ IS A WEAK GAS AND THEY KNOW IT
Before documenting the institutional machinery of climate fraud, it is necessary to establish the scientific reality that the entire apparatus was built to conceal, and that the press was conscripted to suppress.
The Lindzen-Happer paper accomplishes this with a precision that dismantles every climate alarm claim at the level of fundamental physics. Carbon dioxide has two relevant properties: it creates food and oxygen through photosynthesis, and it functions as a greenhouse gas. The climate movement has built a $400 billion industry on the second property while deliberately suppressing the first. Lindzen and Happer, as career physicists with special expertise in radiation physics, the science that describes how CO₂ and greenhouse gases affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere, demonstrate that this entire edifice rests on a scientific falsehood.
At today’s atmospheric concentration of approximately 425 parts per million, CO₂ is a weak greenhouse gas because of what physics calls saturation. Each additional increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in radiative forcing, meaning the warming effect diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases. This is not a theory. This is established radiation physics, described by “precise physical equations that have never failed to describe observations of the real world.”
The implications are devastating for the climate establishment. Doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 ppm, an increase that would take decades at current emission rates, would cause a forcing increase of only 3.0 watts per square meter. That translates to a temperature increase of less than 1°C, trivial, and almost certainly beneficial given that historical warm periods coincided with human civilizational flourishing.
But Lindzen and Happer go further. They calculated the actual temperature effect of the Net Zero policies that the United States and the world are spending hundreds of billions to implement:
- United States Net Zero by 2050 avoids a temperature increase of only 0.02°F without feedback, or 0.06°F with the positive feedback factor of 4 that the IPCC typically builds into its models.
- Worldwide Net Zero by 2050 avoids only 0.13°For 0.50°F with IPCC feedback assumptions.
Read those numbers again. The entire $369.4 billion Inflation Reduction Act. The entire ESG investment apparatus channeling $50 trillion in mandated assets. The entire consulting-industrial complex extracting $19.8 billion annually. Every hydrogen project, every carbon capture facility, every offshore wind farm. All of it (every dollar, every regulation, every career destroyed, every pension fund looted) to avoid a temperature change so small it cannot be measured with a household thermometer.
Where is the press? These calculations are not hidden in classified documents. They are published, peer-reviewed, and authored by professors from two of the most prestigious scientific institutions on Earth. Any journalist with a phone could call MIT or Princeton’s physics department and verify the math. None did. None will. Because reporting that U.S. Net Zero avoids 0.02°F of warming would unravel every editorial position, every advertiser relationship, and every institutional alliance that major media outlets have built around climate alarmism over three decades.
As Lindzen himself stated: “Doubling CO₂ involves a two percent perturbation to this energy budget. So do minor changes in clouds, ocean circulations, and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood that the climate, which consists of many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomalies, is controlled by a two percent perturbation in the energy budget due to just one of the numerous variables, namely CO₂? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic.”
Moreover, water vapor and clouds account for more than 90% of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat. CO₂ and all other greenhouse gases combined account for less than 10%. The warming effects of methane and nitrous oxide, the other gases targeted by Net Zero regulations, are “so small that they are irrelevant to climate.” The entire regulatory apparatus built around these gases is chasing a phantom. The press reports each new methane regulation as urgent environmental progress. It is not. It is theater, and the press is the stage crew.
Saturation also explains why Earth’s temperature was never catastrophically high during the hundreds of millions of years when CO₂ levels were 10 to 20 times higher than today. Six hundred million years of geological data (data that the EPA and IPCC systematically omit, and that the press has never once investigated) show CO₂ levels routinely exceeding 2,000 ppm for more than half of Earth’s history, with a high point of approximately 7,000 ppm. Life didn’t merely survive these concentrations. Life flourished. Temperatures were often inverselycorrelated with CO₂, high when CO₂ was low, low when CO₂ was high. The geological record demolishes the claim that CO₂ is “the main driver of climate change.” The press has never reported this. Not once.
Today’s 425 ppm is not dangerously high. It is near a geological record lownot far above the 150 ppm threshold where plants die of CO₂ starvation and all human life would end from lack of food. The EPA’s assertion that 415 ppm is “higher than at any time in the last 2 million years” is what Lindzen calls “cherry-picking”, selecting a tiny sliver of geological time to manufacture alarm while ignoring 598 million years of contradictory data. Every major newspaper in America has repeated the EPA’s cherry-picked claim. None have reported the 600 million years of data that contradict it. That is not journalism. That is public relations for a fraud.
THE MODELS DON’T WORK, AND THE PRESS NEVER CHECKED
If CO₂ saturation is the scientific kill shot, climate model failure is the bullet wound that the establishment cannot stop bleeding from. Every Net Zero regulation, every consulting firm feasibility study, every IPCC projection, every economic model justifying trillions in expenditure, all of it rests on computer climate models. And those models fail the most basic test of science: their predictions do not match observed reality.
Lindzen and Happer present the work of Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, who applied the scientific method to 102 temperature predictions made by CMIP5 models from 32 institutions covering the period 1979 to 2016. The result: 101 of 102 model predictions failed to match observed temperatures. The models consistently predicted two to three times more warming than actually occurred. As Christy concluded: “The consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or related policy decisions.”
Nor does the later CMIP6 generation fix the problem. Steven Koonin’s analysis demonstrated that “the later generation of CMIP models are actually more uncertain than the earlier ones” and “CMIP6 models don’t perform any better than those of CMIP5.” Among 267 simulations from 29 models, results “differed dramatically both from each other and from observations” and “disagree wildly with each other.” The simulated global average surface temperature “varies among models three times greater than the observed value of the twentieth century warming they’re purporting to describe and explain.”
Even establishment climate scientists acknowledge the problem. Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens stated with rare candor that current climate models “are inadequate for addressing the needs of society struggling to anticipate the impact of pending changes to weather and climate.”
Where is the press? Palmer and Stevens published their admission in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesone of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. A candid admission from within the climate establishment that their own models are inadequate should have been front-page news. It would have been, in any other scientific domain. If two leading aerospace engineers published that flight safety models were “inadequate,” every newspaper in America would run the story. If two leading pharmaceutical researchers admitted drug efficacy models were “inadequate,” congressional hearings would begin within days. But when two leading climate scientists admit their models are inadequate, models upon which $400 billion in spending depends, the press ignores it entirely. Because the press is not reporting on climate science. The press is protecting climate science from reporting.
Under the scientific method, which requires that models be tested against observations and rejected when they fail, every climate model underlying every Net Zero regulation should have been discarded decades ago. As Richard Feynman stated: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
Instead, these failed models were fed to consulting firms who used them to validate $22 billion in projects that collapsed in the first six months of 2025 alone. McKinsey used them to project hydrogen production costs that Siemens Energy would never guarantee. BCG used them to project carbon capture rates that Fluor Corporation would never certify. The press reported every project announcement with breathless enthusiasm. The press reported almost none of the cancellations with equivalent scrutiny. That asymmetry is not accidental, it is the editorial manifestation of institutional capture.
THE 97% CONSENSUS: HISTORY’S MOST BRAZEN STATISTICAL LIE, AMPLIFIED BY A COMPLIANT PRESS
The climate movement’s most powerful rhetorical weapon has been the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree” on human-caused global warming. This statistic, endlessly repeated by politicians, journalists, and activists, carries enormous persuasive force. After all, how can laypeople question scientific truth when virtually all experts supposedly agree?
Lindzen and Happer are unequivocal: “The 97% number is false. The figure of 97% is entirely discredited.”
The press made this lie possible. No statistic in modern history has been more uncritically repeated by more journalists across more outlets with less verification than the 97% consensus claim. Every major newspaper, every network news broadcast, every cable news panel, every magazine cover story has invoked this number as though it were established fact. Not one major outlet has ever published a detailed examination of Cook’s methodology. Not one has reported that Cook excluded 66% of the papers he surveyed. Not one has reported Legates’ finding that only 0.3% of papers supported the strong consensus claim. Not one has reported that the 97% figure represents a 32,000% statistical inflation of actual scientific agreement.
This is not a failure of journalism. Failure implies an attempt that fell short. This is the abdicationof journalism, the deliberate refusal to apply the most elementary fact-checking standards to a statistic that justifies $400 billion in public expenditure. A first-year journalism student could debunk the 97% claim in an afternoon by reading Cook’s own data tables. No major outlet has done so in over a decade. That is not incompetence. That is complicity.
In the entire history of science, 97% of researchers have never agreed on anything. Not germ theory, which took 30 years to reach 85% acceptance after Pasteur’s initial publication. Not continental drift, which took 53 years to reach 82% acceptance after Wegener’s 1912 proposal. Not the DNA double helix (which never exceeded 90% acceptance even after overwhelming experimental confirmation. Scientific consensus develops through competitive hypothesis testing, experimental validation, and theoretical refinement) processes that typically produce convergence rates of 60-75% among qualified experts even for well-established principles.
Climate science’s claimed 97% agreement on complex, multi-variable causation within 25 years of initial hypothesis formulation represents a statistical deviation so extreme it can only indicate artificial consensus manufacturing rather than genuine scientific convergence.
The source of the statistic confirms the fraud. John Cook’s 2013 study analyzed 11,944 climate papers using seven categories. His raw data revealed: only 64 papers (0.54%) fell into Category 1, strong consensus with explicit quantification. Another 922 (7.72%) supported moderate consensus. A total of 2,910 (24.36%) expressed weak consensus. But 7,930 papers66.40%expressed no position whatsoever.
Cook excluded the two-thirds expressing no position and calculated “97% consensus” only among papers expressing any position at all. This transformed results showing that 8.26% of all papers supported strong human causation into the manufactured claim that 97% of scientists agreed, a 32,000% statistical inflation.
José Duarte characterized Cook’s study as “multiply fraudulent.” David Legates found only 0.3% of papers actually supported the strong consensus claim. Richard Tol confirmed systematic bias. The press reported none of this. Duarte’s critique, Legates’ reanalysis, and Tol’s verification were published in peer-reviewed journals and publicly available. Reporters covering climate could have found them with a single database search. They chose not to look, because finding the truth would have required reporting it, and reporting it would have destroyed the narrative their editors, advertisers, and institutional allies depend upon.
My book, The Impossible Consensus, demonstrates through rigorous statistical analysis that 97% agreement among approximately 97,000 publishing climate researchers is mathematically impossible without coordination, a probability approaching 10⁻²,⁰⁹³. The press will not report this either. Not because the math is wrong, but because the math is devastating.
THE SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT: THE PRESS AS EXECUTIONER
The manufactured consensus required more than statistical manipulation. It required the systematic destruction of scientists who possessed the credentials and expertise to expose the fraud. The Lindzen-Happer paper is itself testimony from two of the most prominent victims. And the press was not merely a bystander to this destruction, the press was the executioner.
Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT’s Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, member of the National Academy of Sciences, author of over 200 peer-reviewed publications) faced systematic career destruction for questioning climate sensitivity calculations. Federal grants were terminated. Conferences excluded him. MIT faced external pressure to dissociate from his research.
The press’s role: Rather than investigating why an MIT professor with 200 publications and National Academy membership was being systematically silenced, the press amplified the silencing. Media outlets refused coverage of Lindzen’s research while actively promoting lesser-credentialed scientists supporting consensus positions. The few profiles that did appear framed Lindzen as a contrarian outlier rather than what he actually is: one of the most qualified atmospheric physicists alive, whose expertise in radiation physics, the very science governing CO₂’s interaction with the atmosphere, exceeds that of virtually every scientist the press routinely quotes as a climate authority.
Dr. William Happer (Princeton’s Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, former Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy) was dismissed by the Clinton Administration after congressional testimony questioning climate policy. Federal agencies then terminated grants for atmospheric physics projects unrelated to climate science.
The press’s role: Happer’s dismissal was reported as justified housecleaning rather than investigated as political retaliation against a Princeton physicist for scientific dissent. When a government fires a Princeton professor for testifying truthfully before Congress, that is not a personnel decision (it is the suppression of scientific speech. Any journalist worthy of the title should have recognized it as the story of a career. Instead, the press shrugged) because Happer’s testimony threatened the narrative, and the narrative was more valuable than the truth.
Dr. Judith Curry (former Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, author of over 180 scientific papers) retired from academia in 2017 citing “the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.”
The press’s role: Curry’s retirement was covered as a cautionary tale about “leaving the mainstream” rather than what it actually represented: a distinguished scientist with 180 publications being driven from her profession by coordinated institutional persecution. The press could have investigated the simultaneous termination of her grants by multiple federal agencies, coordination that suggests organized retaliation. They could have examined the rejection of her papers by journals that simultaneously accepted methodologically inferior papers supporting consensus. They chose to tell the establishment’s story instead: She left because she couldn’t keep up. She left because she was wrong. She left because the science moved on. She left because the press helped make her position untenable.
Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels was forced to resign after Governor Tim Kaine warned him not to use his official title when discussing climate. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist. It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.”
The press’s role: A state government ordering a scientist not to speak publicly on his area of expertise is the definition of censorship. In any other context, the press would have treated this as a First Amendment outrage. Instead, Michael’s silencing was either ignored or reported sympathetically, as though preventing a qualified climatologist from discussing climatology were reasonable governance rather than authoritarian suppression.
Dr. Freeman Dysonthe renowned theoretical physicist at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, declared climate models unreliable and argued that increased CO₂ could benefit humanity through enhanced plant growth.
The press’s role: Dyson was one of the most celebrated physicists of the 20th century. His climate skepticism should have commanded front-page attention. Instead, the press applied the same “denier” label that it applied to every dissenting scientist, regardless of credentials, a rhetorical weapon deliberately chosen for its Holocaust association to make engagement with dissenting views career suicide for reporters and readers alike.
Dr. Harold Lewis’s 2010 resignation letter from the American Physical Society described “the global warming scam, with the literally trillions of dollars driving it” as “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” The press buried it.A distinguished physicist publicly accusing the climate establishment of “the greatest pseudoscientific fraud” in history, and the press treated it as a non-event. Because reporting Lewis’s accusation would have required investigating it, and investigating it would have confirmed it.
The 2009 Climategate emails documented coordination to suppress dissent. Phil Jones to Michael Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Jones on data manipulation: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years… to hide the decline.” On destroying evidence: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
The press’s role: Climategate was the biggest science scandal in decades, senior climate scientists caught coordinating to suppress dissent, manipulate data, and destroy evidence. The press covered it for approximately one news cycle, then pivoted to the narrative that the emails were “taken out of context” and that subsequent investigations “cleared” the scientists involved. Those investigations were conducted by the very institutions implicated in the emails, the University of East Anglia, Penn State, and government agencies dependent on climate funding. The press accepted these self-investigations as exoneration without noting the obvious conflict of interest. Imagine the press accepting Enron’s internal investigation clearing Enron of fraud. That is the journalistic standard applied to Climategate.
THE IPCC: A GOVERNMENT MINISTRY MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE, WITH PRESS CREDENTIALS
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the institutional engine of climate alarm since 1988. Politicians, journalists, and activists treat IPCC reports as the gold standard of climate science. But Lindzen and Happer’s analysis of the IPCC’s own procedural rules exposes it as a government-controlled propaganda operation that publishes government opinion, not science. And the press has served as the IPCC’s unpaid communications department for over three decades.
Two IPCC rules reveal the fraud:
Rule 1: All Summaries for Policymakers Are Approved Line by Line by Member Governments.The IPCC’s own procedures state: “Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries.” Since governments control the Summaries for Policymakers, the Summaries are government opinions, not science.
Rule 2: Government Summaries Override Any Inconsistent Conclusions Scientists Write for Full Reports. Changes to full reports “are limited to those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.” No matter what independent scientists conclude, governments’ predetermined conclusions prevail.
The 1995 case is the smoking gun. Independent scientists drafting Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s Climate Change 1995 concluded: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate warming observed to manmade causes.” The government-written Summary proclaimed the opposite: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Under Rule 2, the scientists’ draft was deleted and rewritten, with more than 15 sections changed after scientists had accepted the supposedly final text.
The press’s role is damning. The 1995 falsification was publicly documented by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and former president of Rockefeller University, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “A Major Deception on Climate Warming.” Seitz wrote that “more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report” were changed “after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.” This was not an anonymous leak. This was the former president of the National Academy of Sciences publicly accusing the IPCC of scientific fraud.
The press response? Seitz was dismissed as elderly and out of touch. His credentials, which in any other context would command absolute authority, were waved away because his accusation threatened the narrative. The press had already invested institutional credibility in the IPCC’s conclusions. Admitting that the IPCC had falsified its own scientists’ findings would have required retracting years of coverage. It was easier to discredit Seitz than to investigate his claims, claims that Lindzen and Happer have now confirmed with the IPCC’s own procedural documentation.
Every time a journalist writes “according to the IPCC” as though citing a scientific authority, they are citing a government document produced by government officials who override scientific conclusions to match political objectives. Every IPCC report since 1995 has repeated the falsified conclusion that the scientists’ original draft contradicted. The press has amplified every repetition without once reporting the documented falsification that originated it. This is not journalism. This is stenography for governments.
As Nobel physicist Richard Feynman stated: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.” The press, whose entire purpose in a free society is to hold government accountable, has instead functioned as the government’s megaphone on climate, amplifying government-approved IPCC conclusions while silencing the scientists whose work those conclusions falsified.
FOSSIL FUELS: THE LIFE-ESSENTIAL RESOURCE THEY WANT TO DESTROY, AND THE PRESS HELPS THEM
The Lindzen-Happer paper provides the scientific foundation for a truth that the climate establishment has spent decades suppressing and the press has spent decades concealing: CO₂ is not a pollutant. It is essential to life. And eliminating fossil fuels would constitute the greatest humanitarian catastrophe in human history.
Carbon dioxide is essential to nearly all life on earth through photosynthesis. Doubling CO₂ from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%while having a negligible effect on temperature. CO₂ increases crop yields by 12-14% for wheat, rice, and soybeans, improves water use efficiency by 5-20%, and enhances overall plant productivity in drought-stricken areas.
Has the press ever reported that more CO₂ means more food? That doubling atmospheric CO₂ would increase global food production by 40%? That CO₂ at today’s levels is near a geological record low, close to the threshold where plants die? These are not fringe claims. They are established agricultural science, confirmed by decades of greenhouse experiments and field studies. The press has access to this research. The press has chosen not to report it, because “CO₂ feeds the world” contradicts the “CO₂ is pollution” narrative that sustains the climate-industrial complex and the media’s role within it.
Meanwhile, eliminating fossil fuels would cause consequences that no major media outlet has honestly examined:
- Massive human starvation by eliminating nitrogen fertilizer production through the Haber-Bosch process, which depends entirely on fossil fuels and feeds billions
- Elimination of 10 million jobs through EPA tailpipe emission rules designed to end gas-powered vehicle production
- Tripling of energy costs as households are forced from natural gas to electricity
- Destruction of modern infrastructure (petrochemicals, ammonia synthesis, transportation, construction) all dependent on fossil fuels
- Perpetuation of energy poverty for 3.6 billion people worldwide who lack adequate energy access
The Sri Lanka example provides a real-world demonstration that the press briefly covered but refused to connect to the broader climate policy agenda. Government mandates restricting mineral nitrogen fertilizer, precisely the policy that global Net Zero requires, collapsed “the once bountiful agricultural sector” of an entire nation. Sri Lanka’s experiment produced exactly the humanitarian catastrophe that global Net Zero would replicate at planetary scale. The press covered Sri Lanka’s agricultural collapse as a failure of local governance. They never reported it as a preview of what Net Zero means for global food production. Because that connection would have indicted the climate policies that every major newspaper’s editorial board supports.
Lindzen and Happer’s conclusion is unsparing: “We are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march.” The press will not quote this passage. Not because it lacks authority, it comes from MIT and Princeton, but because it frames climate policy as a threat to humanity rather than its salvation. And framing climate policy as salvation is the press’s institutional commitment.
MAURICE STRONG: THE OIL BARON WHO INVENTED ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAUCRACY, WITH MEDIA PROTECTION
With the scientific fraud established, the institutional question becomes: Who built the machinery that weaponized fraudulent science into a $400 billion theft?
The architect was not a scientist, an activist, or an environmentalist. He was an oilman. And the press made him a hero.
Maurice Frederick Strong described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His career trajectory reveals the systematic construction of the climate-industrial complex: from the Alberta oil patch to President of Power Corporation of Canada to CEO of Petro-Canada to first director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
Strong’s genius lay in recognizing that environmental concern could be systematized into permanent institutional structures requiring continuous expert management, creating unprecedented consulting opportunities while ensuring environmental problems would never be solved, thus guaranteeing permanent revenue streams.
The press’s role: Maurice Strong was one of the most profiled figures in international affairs for three decades. The press covered his environmental leadership with consistent reverence, the visionary Canadian who bridged business and environmentalism. What the press never investigated was the systematic coordination between Strong’s environmental policy positions and his personal financial interests. Strong simultaneously championed “sustainable development” at the Rio Summit while involved in oil shale development and water extraction schemes. He built environmental bureaucracy while profiting from the energy industries that bureaucracy purported to regulate. A journalist investigating the overlap between Strong’s environmental advocacy and his business interests would have discovered the template for the entire climate-industrial complex. None did. Strong’s dual role as environmental champion and oil industry insider was not hidden, it was publicly documented. The press chose not to connect the dots because connecting them would have revealed the climate movement’s foundational corruption.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference created UNEP. The 1992 Rio Summit expanded the framework. Each conference expanded the definition of environmental crisis while expanding the institutional apparatus required to manage it. Strong’s critical innovation, positioning environmental protection as requiring economic analysis and market-based solutions, transformed environmental policy from “you cannot pollute” to “you can pollute if you pay the right price and buy the right permits.” The press reported each conference as progress for the planet. None reported the systematic expansion of a bureaucratic apparatus designed to ensure permanent consulting dependency.
THE CLUB OF ROME: INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PERMANENT CRISIS, PRESS INCLUDED
The Club of Rome, founded in 1968, provided intellectual justification for permanent expert dependency. Its 1972 publication “The Limits to Growth” employed computer modeling to predict civilizational collapse, using methodology that systematically excluded technological innovation, market efficiency, and substitution mechanisms. The predictions failed completely. Oil didn’t run out. Metals remained abundant. Agricultural productivity increased.
But the methodology succeeded brilliantly, demonstrating that computer models could be presented as objective analysis while incorporating assumptions guaranteeing predetermined conclusions. This is precisely the methodology that Lindzen and Happer expose in IPCC climate models: complex structures that can always be adjusted to produce desired alarm levels.
The press’s role: “The Limits to Growth” sold twelve million copies. Media coverage was overwhelmingly credulous. When the predictions failed (systematically, comprehensively, obviously) the press never conducted the retrospective investigation that failed predictions normally warrant. If an economist’s predictions failed this comprehensively, the press would note the failure in every subsequent mention. “The Limits to Growth” predictions failed equally comprehensively, but the press continues to cite the Club of Rome as a respected authority on sustainability without noting their track record of spectacular predictive failure. This selective amnesia is not accidental. Acknowledging the Club of Rome’s failed predictions would undermine the credibility of the computer-model-driven catastrophism that the press depends upon for climate coverage.
The Club’s recent 600% revenue growth from 2018 to 2022, funded by pharmaceutical heirs, mining executives, and impact investment controllers, has received zero investigative press coverage. An organization experiencing 600% revenue growth while its historical predictions have uniformly failed would normally attract journalistic scrutiny. In the climate context, it attracts only respectful profiles.
THE HANSEN MOMENT: FROM SCIENCE TO THEATER, PRESS AS STAGE CREW
The transformation of climate science into a political movement required a catalyzing moment of manufactured urgency. On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the Senate, in a hearing where Senator Tim Wirth admitted scheduling it for the hottest day of summer and sabotaging the air conditioning.
“We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer… so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”
Scientific truth requires no theatrical enhancement. The hearing was a staged event designed to manufacture emotional urgency.
The press’s role is decisive. Wirth’s admission of staging was made publicly, in recorded interviews available to any reporter. The confession that a pivotal moment in climate policy history was deliberately staged should have been the definitive story about how climate politics operates. Instead, it became an amusing anecdote buried in retrospective profiles, mentioned occasionally as a colorful detail rather than investigated as evidence of systematic manipulation. A free press would have used Wirth’s confession to re-examine every claim made during that hearing. The American press used it as cocktail party trivia. The distinction between those two responses is the distinction between journalism and complicity.
THE $20 BILLION CONSULTING GOLD RUSH, UNREPORTED
Seven major firms (McKinsey ($4.7B), BCG ($3.2B), Deloitte ($3.8B), PwC ($2.9B), EY ($2.4B), KPMG ($1.8B), and Accenture ($1.0B)) extract $19.8 billion annually in climate consulting revenue. The consulting model is ingeniously predatory: firms get paid to design impossible projects, validate their feasibility, manage implementation, and face no accountability when projects fail.
The press’s role: The $19.8 billion annual consulting extraction has received virtually no investigative coverage. The same press corps that investigates pharmaceutical pricing, defense contractor billing, and technology company practices with appropriate skepticism treats climate consulting revenue as unremarkable. McKinsey publishes reports claiming climate tech markets could reach $9-12 trillion, reports that conveniently justify the services McKinsey sells, and the press cites these reports as independent analysis rather than recognizing them as marketing materials from a $4.7 billion beneficiary of climate policy.
The global ESG consulting market, valued at $8.12 billion in 2024, is projected to reach $39 billion by 2034. These growth rates, in an industry whose projects fail at 88% rates, should be investigative journalism’s dream story. An industry growing at 16.9% annually while delivering catastrophic failure rates would attract wall-to-wall coverage in any other sector. In climate consulting, it attracts none. Because the press is part of the ecosystem, dependent on the advertising revenue of ESG-committed corporations that need favorable climate coverage to justify their consulting expenditures.
THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT: CODIFYING THE FRAUD, PRESS AS CHEERLEADER
The consulting-industrial complex achieved its ultimate victory with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, $369 billion designed by consulting firms to benefit consulting firms. Rather than funding proven technologies like nuclear power, the Act funnels money toward technologies requiring continuous expert management and complex tax credit optimization.
The press’s role: The IRA was covered as the most significant climate legislation in American history, a narrative provided by the same consulting firms and environmental organizations that wrote and lobbied for the legislation. Not a single major outlet investigated whether the Act’s Byzantine complexity was deliberatedesigned to ensure permanent consulting dependency rather than efficient environmental outcomes. Not a single major outlet reported that the Act excluded nuclear power, the one proven technology that could reliably decarbonize energy, in favor of technologies with decades of documented failure. The press accepted the Act’s framing as “climate action” without examining whether its structure was optimized for environmental outcomes or consulting revenue. The answer, visible in the legislation’s own text, is consulting revenue. The press will not report this.
THE CATASTROPHIC FAILURE: $22 BILLION LOST, AND THE ASYMMETRY OF COVERAGE
In the first half of 2025, over $22 billion in clean energy projects were cancelled, with 16,500 jobs lostthe fastest collapse of announced infrastructure projects in documented U.S. economic history.
The press’s role reveals the asymmetry that defines media complicity. Every project announcement received prominent, enthusiastic coverage: front-page stories, editorial praise, feature profiles of visionary executives. Every project cancellation received a fraction of the coverage, buried in business sections, stripped of context, and never connected to the pattern of systematic failure across the entire renewable energy sector.
This asymmetry is not accidental. It is the editorial manifestation of institutional capture. Announcing a green hydrogen project generates advertising revenue from the announcing company, favorable ESG coverage that supports the company’s stock price, and editorial alignment with the outlet’s stated climate commitments. Investigating that same project’s cancellation threatens all three.
The Hydrogen Massacre, Unreported Pattern
The press covered individual hydrogen cancellations as isolated business decisions. The press never reported the patternthat hydrogen projects are failing universally, globally, across every company and every country, because the engineering is impossible at commercial scale:
- Fortescue cancelled Arizona Hydrogen and PEM50 projects
- Air Products cancelled its New York facility
- ArcelorMittal halted €2.5 billion in Germany despite €1.3 billion in subsidies
- BP shut down its entire hydrogen-for-transportation division
- Shell abandoned Norway; Equinor cancelled days later
- Seven projects totaling $13 billion cancelled in British Columbia alone
- Saudi Arabia’s NEOM project lacks buyers despite 80% construction
When BP and Shell, the two most technically sophisticated energy companies on Earth, simultaneously abandon hydrogen, the story is not “two companies make business decisions.” The story is “hydrogen doesn’t work.” The press will not write that story. Because writing it would require acknowledging that the consulting firms, environmental organizations, government agencies, and editorial boards that championed hydrogen were wrong, or lying.
Carbon Capture: 88% Failure, Unreported
The DOE cancelled $3.7 billion in CCS awards in May 2025. Historical analysis reveals 88% failure rates. Chevron’s Gorgon achieved 30% of its capture target at 317% cost overrun while producing a net increase of 23 Mt CO₂. The press has never reported the 88% historical failure rate as a pattern. Each CCS failure is covered individually, stripped of historical context, never connected to the five-decade record proving the technology doesn’t work at scale.
Offshore Wind: The Story the Press Preferred Not to Tell
Shell announced it “will not lead new offshore wind developments.” BP paused its only planned U.S. wind farm. The Trump administration suspended five projects. The press eagerly covered the Trump suspensions as political sabotage of clean energy, the story they wanted to tell. The press largely ignored Shell and BP’s voluntary abandonment, the story that proved the economics don’t work regardless of politics. The editorial choice reveals the bias: when projects fail due to government action, the press covers it as political obstruction. When projects fail due to economic impossibility, the press buries it. The first narrative supports the climate agenda. The second destroys it.
THE EPA ENDANGERMENT FINDING: THE LEGAL KEYSTONE
The Lindzen-Happer paper targets the legal foundation of the regulatory apparatus: the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding. They demonstrate it rests on IPCC reports that are government opinion, models that fail the scientific method, cherry-picked data, and manufactured consensus. Under Supreme Court precedentState Farm, Daubert, Ohio v. EPA, Michigan v. EPAthe Finding satisfies every criterion for invalidation.
If the Endangerment Finding falls, every regulation built upon it falls with it. Every consulting contract validated by those regulations becomes legally vulnerable. Every ESG mandate loses its foundation. The press has never reported the legal vulnerability of the Endangerment Findingbecause doing so would acknowledge that the entire regulatory apparatus rests on a finding that two MIT and Princeton physicists have demonstrated is scientifically invalid.
THE VICTIMS: WHO PAYS WHILE THE PRESS APPLAUDS?
Taxpayers funded $369.4 billion to avoid 0.02°F of warming. The press celebrated the spending and never reported the temperature math.
Pension beneficiaries watch retirement security destroyed through mandatory ESG investments. CalPERS and Illinois Teachers’ Retirement documented how ESG mandates reduced returns. The press covers ESG as responsible investing. The press does not cover the pension fund losses ESG mandates create.
Ratepayers pay higher bills for renewables that reduce grid reliability and require gas backup plants that increase emissions. The press reports renewable mandates as climate progress. The press does not report that those mandates increase both costs and emissions.
Workers lost 16,500 jobs in six months when projects were cancelled. The press that celebrated the jobannouncements did not equally cover the jobdestructions.
Developing country populations receive less aid because development funding flows through consulting firms rather than to people. The world’s 58 least developed countries spend $59 billion servicing debt vs. $28 billion received in climate finance. The press reports climate finance as generosity. The press does not report that more money goes to Western consultants than to the populations supposedly being helped.
THE PERFECT CRIME, AND THE PRESS THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE
The climate-industrial complex achieved history’s most sophisticated fraud by creating systematic alignment among all powerful participants while imposing costs on powerless citizens. But this crime required one final, indispensable accomplice: a press corps willing to amplify the fraud, suppress the dissenters, ignore the failures, and punish anyone who questioned the narrative.
The press accomplished this through five documented mechanisms:
- Editorial policy capture: AP, Reuters, and Scientific American formally modified standards to treat climate science as “settled”, converting newsrooms from institutions of inquiry into enforcement mechanisms for orthodoxy
- The “denier” weapon: Deploying a term deliberately chosen for its Holocaust association to make engagement with dissenting scientists career suicide for journalists
- Advertising dependency: Structuring revenue around ESG-committed corporate clients whose stock valuations depend on favorable climate coverage
- Asymmetric coverage: Enthusiastically reporting project announcements while burying cancellations; profiling climate champions while ignoring or defaming dissenters
- Circular validation: Citing IPCC government opinions as “science,” citing consulting firm marketing as “analysis,” and citing the 97% fraud as “consensus”, creating an echo chamber that sounds authoritative because it cites itself
The Lindzen-Happer paper now breaks this cycle with irrefutable physics from irrefutable credentials. Two professors from MIT and Princeton have proven:
- CO₂ is a weak greenhouse gas, additional increases will have negligible temperature effects
- Even worldwide Net Zero avoids only 0.13-0.50°F, a trivial, unmeasurable change
- 600 million years of data contradict the claim that CO₂ drives climate
- Climate models fail the scientific method, 101 of 102 predictions overshoot reality
- The IPCC publishes government opinion through documented procedural rules that override science
- The 97% consensus is “entirely discredited”
- Eliminating fossil fuels would cause mass starvation and energy poverty
- The EPA Endangerment Finding meets Supreme Court criteria for invalidation
Their paper, combined with the institutional evidence documented here and in The Impossible Consensus, creates an evidentiary foundation so comprehensive that every element of the fraud is now exposed: the science is fraudulent, the consensus was manufactured, the models don’t work, the IPCC is government-controlled, the projects were designed to fail, $400 billion was stolenand the press helped make it happen.
The question is no longer whether the climate movement represents coordinated fraud. The question is whether a free society can survive institutions, including its press, that choose complicity over truth when the stakes are measured in hundreds of billions of stolen dollars, destroyed careers, looted pensions, and the deliberate impoverishment of billions of the world’s poorest people.
The press will not report this article. That silence is the final proof that everything in it is true.
This article is based on the Lindzen-Happer scientific paper “Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuels: Climate Science” (April 28, 2025), documentary evidence from corporate SEC filings, government contract databases, consulting firm revenue reports, project cancellation announcements, engineering feasibility studies, IPCC procedural documents, AP and Reuters editorial policy changes, academic publications, foundation records, Climategate email correspondence, and five decades of institutional documentation compiled in “The Impossible Consensus: The Willing Deception, How the Climate Crisis Satisfied Everyone’s Need to Project Virtue While Enriching Everyone Behind It.”
Related reading
- The Climate Hoax, Europe's Industrial Base Was Dismantled Before the World's Eyes, While the Press Said Nothing
- THE GREAT CLIMATE ROBBERY: From Earth Day 1970 to a $400 Billion Fraud
- The Bill Has Arrived: How €8 Trillion in EU Green Policy and $91 Billion in U.S. Pension Losses Enriched the Consultants Who Designed the Catastrophe
- GM's EV Escapade: How Mary Barra Followed Big Oil's Playbook and Incinerated $7.6 Billion
