Someone frames the issue correctly: 40 years of unscientific eco-propaganda vs science and reality.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/1...to-be-failing/
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...e_proven_fact/

February 19, 2010, 11:43:17 | Anthony Watts

This is a letter professor Richard Lindzen of MIT sent to the Boston Globe and was published today.
It is well worth the read.

KERRY EMANUEL'S Feb. 15 op-ed "Climate changes are proven fact'' is more advocacy than assessment.
Vague terms such as "consistent with,'' "probably,'' and "potentially'' hardly change this.
Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we've seen is
larger than any change we "have been able to discern'' for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels
of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this
cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned
Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the
present.

The claim that everything other than models represents "mere opinion and speculation'' is also
peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend
critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally
tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.

Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John
Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for
climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate
description - at least for scientists supporting such alarm.

Richard S. Lindzen, Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

On Feb 19, 8:40*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Someone frames the issue correctly: 40 years of unscientific eco-propaganda vs science and reality.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/1...d/articles/201...

February 19, 2010, 11:43:17 | Anthony Watts

This is a letter professor Richard Lindzen of MIT sent to the Boston Globe and was published today.
It is well worth the read.

KERRY EMANUEL'S Feb. 15 op-ed "Climate changes are proven fact'' is more advocacy than assessment.
Vague terms such as "consistent with,'' "probably,'' and "potentially'' hardly change this.
Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we've seen is
larger than any change we "have been able to discern'' for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels
of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this
cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned
Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the
present.

The claim that everything other than models represents "mere opinion and speculation'' is also
peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend
critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally
tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.

Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John
Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for
climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate
description - at least for scientists supporting such alarm.

Richard S. Lindzen, Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

'Second, the concentrations of the two most important long-lived
greenhouse gases

(WATER VAPOUR ACCOUNTS FOR 90+% OF GHE, LIAR! Why do they find it
necessary to lie and mislead the public, could it be the truth doesn't
support their pet mission?)

, carbon dioxide and methane, have been increasing since the dawn of
the industrial era;

(and only gone up steadily since even though industrilisation has gone
up massively around the globe and fossil fuel use has gone up 1800%)

carbon dioxide alone has increased by about 40 percent (and fossil
fuel use goin up by 1800%, how does that work???)

.. These increases have been brought about by fossil fuel combustion
and changes in land use.

(WE THINK, NOT PROVEN BUT PROBABLE! Whether these have then led to GW
is another question of course)

'We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which
will never come,

(true but there are some real questions that need to be answered.
Plus, as it hasn't warmed for 15 years, maybe a few more years sorting
out these questions will tell us a lot, as fossil fuel use continues
to rise massively. In those 15 years China and India, Russia and
Brazil have practically industrialised, and zero increase in the rate
of co2 increase and zero increase in temperature, ummmm!?)

nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger.

(Then maybe the AGW brigade could protect science a little by
following its ethical standards).

We have never before dealt with a problem that threatens not us, but
our distant descendants. The philosophical, scientific, and political
issues are unquestionably tough. We might begin by mustering the
courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and
open way.'

(Is that a message from the author to the author or what!? Kerry
Emanuel, take your own advice.)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...e_proven_fact/
Kerry Emanuel is director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and
Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology