The Gore who cried Warming

I wanted to point out an insightful article on Global Warming, echoing statements made here by Bear and me. In this week's Wall Street Journal, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote an article disputing the existence of a consensus of the cause of Global Warming (republished yesterday on OpinionJournal). Professor Lindzen provides a really excellent basis to discount the alarmism of Al Gore.

I really encourage you to read his entire piece. I don't want to paraphrase it here for fear of missing something important. Besides, he is far more qualified than I even hope to be. I will relay his 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.

Read it.