This expert opinion was filed September 10, 2024

Court of Appeals The Hague
The Hague
The Netherlands

Richard Lindzen
Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

William Happer
Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University

Steven Koonin
University Professor, New York University,
Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute

Re: Shell v. Milieudefensie et al.

Expert Opinion prepared for Foundation ‘Environment and Man’ (Stichting ‘Milieu en Mens’, M&M)

This expert opinion has been prepared for the Foundation ‘Environment and Man’ (Stichting ‘Milieu en Mens’, M&M) to be submitted to the Hague Court of Appeals in Shell v. Milieudefensie et al, in which M&M has intervened (the ‘Climate Case’). This opinion was jointly authored and represents our joint opinion. Our time spent producing this opinion has been provided pro bono.

We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics, dynamic heat transfer and computer modeling for decades, subjects directly relevant to the global warming debate. Each of us has published over 200 peer-reviewed papers, many on the science of climate or closely related subjects. Our curricula vitae are attached in the appendix.

In our opinion, the District Court of The Hague findings that “dangerous” climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are contradicted by the scientific method and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data.

Science demonstrates fossil fuels and CO2 will not cause dangerous climate change. Rather, there will be disastrous consequences for people worldwide if fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are reduced to “net zero,” including mass starvation.

Specifically, our opinion is organized around the following key issues that have arisen in the District Court of The Hague in the Climate Case:

First, there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, and the West if fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are reduced to “net zero,” including mass starvation and loss of reliable and inexpensive energy.

This action will undermine human rights with which the Climate Case is concerned and cripple the realization of the first three UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) — no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and wellbeing.

Second, the Court in first instance equated the state of climate science with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In Part II we demonstrate the IPCC reports have no value as science because the IPCC is government controlled. Thus, the IPCC represents only government opinions, not science, and thus provides no scientific basis for the Court’s opinion.

Third, this Court in first instance found that “dangerous” climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. We demonstrate in Part III these conclusions are contradicted by the scientific method and only supported by the unscientific methods of consensus, peer review, government opinions and cherry-picked or falsified data. Hundreds of research papers confirm the highly beneficial effects of increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2, especially in dry farming areas.

Download the entire expert opinion here:

Lindzen-Happer-Koonin-Affidavit-30-Nov-2023