No Consensus Among Scientists on Global Warming

Al Gore's new schtick is to claim that the world is in dire trouble due to "human induced" global warming, and that scientists all agree. Wrong, says Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Dr. Lindzen pretty much demolishes Gore's case, and then ends with this:

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.

The left has gotten very good at the notion of telling a lie often enough until people believe it to be the truth (such as the "worst economy in 50 years"). There is clearly an attempt to do the same with global warming, and unless more real experts stand up to the politically correct, the lie will continue.