Global Warming

Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago about what he called the "alarmism" and "feeding frenzy" surrounding the climate change – global warming debate: "But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that is supposedly their basis." Professor David Deming, a geophysicist, wrote: "The media hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists, who don’t understand the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific knowledge. Science changes." Robert Bradley, President of the Institute for Energy Research, wrote in the Washington Times: "The emotional, politicized debate over global warming has produced a fire, ready, aim mentality, despite great and still-growing scientific uncertainty about the problem. Still, climate alarmists demand a multitude of do-somethings to address the problem they are sure exists and is solvable. They pronounce the debate over in their favor, and call their cities names, such as deniers, as in Holocaust deniers. This has created a bad climate for scientific research and for policy making. In fact, the debate is more than unsettled."