MIT Meteorologist Says NO To Global Warming
Doctor Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And he has a message. He says, "Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science."
Dr. Lindzen continues, "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes."
Hard as that is to believe, I think, I recall that mid-west farmers have always said, "The weather just is." One day it's cold, the next day, it's warm. The only constant is that the weather is changing constantly, I think to myself after hearing his words.
Dr. Lindzen, unmoved by my observation, continues, "The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week." And of course, I know this, and he knows this... but there does seem to be a lot of people unwilling to look at this with anything other that outright "screaming in the street" hysteria.
How can this be so difficult to understand, I think aloud? Then, I remember. We've become a nation of idiots glued to American Idol and hanging on every word about Anna-Nicole Smith, and more interested in basketball than science.
Dr. Lindzen confirms my thoughts by stating, "Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now." Of course I suddenly realize that if the weatherman can't predict the weather next week with any accuracy - using the latest and greatest supercomputers - then how the hell is he guessing the weather in 200 years?
And all this activity by Al Gore's brain-dead zealots; maybe it's harmless I wonder. No says Dr. Lindzen, "actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia."
But what about the Kyoto Treaty I ask? Again, Dr. Lindzen stares at me and explains, "Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading." So... as I feared and suspected, this whole thing is about money. Now it makes sense and why it's being pushed so hard by Al and his pals. Money. Money. Money.
So, is there really a debate about Global Warming? Dr. Lindzen will tell you NO, because there is no global warming. And if someone tells you that he really doesn't know what he is talking about, well, just remember that he is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And uh... Al Gore isn't any of that.
Please read this Newsweek article by clicking here
Dr. Lindzen continues, "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes."
Hard as that is to believe, I think, I recall that mid-west farmers have always said, "The weather just is." One day it's cold, the next day, it's warm. The only constant is that the weather is changing constantly, I think to myself after hearing his words.
Dr. Lindzen, unmoved by my observation, continues, "The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week." And of course, I know this, and he knows this... but there does seem to be a lot of people unwilling to look at this with anything other that outright "screaming in the street" hysteria.
How can this be so difficult to understand, I think aloud? Then, I remember. We've become a nation of idiots glued to American Idol and hanging on every word about Anna-Nicole Smith, and more interested in basketball than science.
Dr. Lindzen confirms my thoughts by stating, "Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now." Of course I suddenly realize that if the weatherman can't predict the weather next week with any accuracy - using the latest and greatest supercomputers - then how the hell is he guessing the weather in 200 years?
And all this activity by Al Gore's brain-dead zealots; maybe it's harmless I wonder. No says Dr. Lindzen, "actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia."
But what about the Kyoto Treaty I ask? Again, Dr. Lindzen stares at me and explains, "Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading." So... as I feared and suspected, this whole thing is about money. Now it makes sense and why it's being pushed so hard by Al and his pals. Money. Money. Money.
So, is there really a debate about Global Warming? Dr. Lindzen will tell you NO, because there is no global warming. And if someone tells you that he really doesn't know what he is talking about, well, just remember that he is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And uh... Al Gore isn't any of that.
Please read this Newsweek article by clicking here
| Permalink | E-mail this post 