From the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen:

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.

Again, I say, before giving in to the hysteria of the eco-doomsayers, we need to have a better understanding of the causes and effects of global warming. Before enacting “remedies”, we also need to have a more clear idea of what our actions will accomplish and what their costs will be.

Read the rest.