Another great, sensible article on the need for Chicken Littles to calm down and start eating their Prozac. . . July 5, 2006Posted by Administrator in Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, MSM.
. . .here.
All kinds of good stuff, but note the conclusion:
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
Note the author, not a shill for the oil industry, but an MIT professor.
Al, stick this in your smoke and pipe it.