Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Global Warming Intimidation? State of Fear???


...how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes....Climate of Fear, Richard Lindzen , Opinion Journal, 4/12/2006


Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.


...there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest....Climate of Fear, continued, Lindzen


Perhaps Dr. Lindzen knows something about what's going on. Holders of major endowed chairs at university are so honored, especially in the sciences, for being especially aware of a particular field. Dr. Lindzen's is atmospheric science which has something to do with the weather, among other things; MIT is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I think he's a little better qualified than a holder of 23 patents in optics to discuss the weather!

Or maybe, because Alfred Sloan was a founder of General Motors, Dr. Lindzen's just a prostitute selling himself to the oil industry. Maybe the sun is actually orbiting the Earth and the moon is blue cheese. Maybe believers in global warming are at the center of the universe. And maybe a reborn Galileo would have found that fighting the Inquisition takes place in a different kind of High Church nowadays, one whose malevolent findings are excused by "peer review."

Luther

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Maybe the optical patent holder is looking thru the wrong side of the telescope.

--W