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.