Our last post on global warming, where we referenced a Wall Street Journal article by MIT Professor of Meteorology, Richard S. Lindzen, received more than a few comments.
There is an excellent resource online that identifies many of the high-profile individuals around the world who are on record as challenging global warming theories – it’s called SourceWatch and their list can be found on their Climate Change Controversy page.
We dug into Professor Lindzen’s background a little more, we even left a message on his voicemail to which, for the record, he will hopefully respond. In addition to his Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled “Climate of Fear,” he has authored for the Cato Institute an essay entitled “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus.” They are worth reading.
Unlike many global warming skeptics, Dr. Lindzen is acknowledged even by his critics as being an outstanding atmospheric scientist. Even those who accept global warming theories usually agree there is a range of predicted global warming outcomes – between 3 and 15 degrees centigrade. This is the difference between a manageable change and a catastrophe. Which is it?
While Al Gore, for whom I have huge respect, stumps the globe with newfound and natural passion, preaching the need for urgent action, I wonder how many people have really thought about what, in practice, it would mean to regulate carbon emissions. It would mean this: The biggest power grab by big business and government – operating in tandem – in the history of the world.
Meanwhile, at least to this non-scientist, there are many unanswered questions. Here’s one: If anthropogenic CO2 is only responsible for 3-5% of CO2 emissions, why not simply reforest the planet to absorb more CO2? We’ve lost over 60% of the original forest canopy on earth. Why not just put some of it back?
Here’s another: While we’re spending precious energy trying to redefine CO2 as a pollutant, has anyone noticed we’re not tackling the remaining major air polluting industries, and getting the gross polluting cars off the road? We love photovoltaics and battery powered cars – we love them and fight for them because they don’t pollute and they will provide energy independence. They are urgently needed for these reasons alone.
Skepticism with integrity is not a crime for which any environmentalist should be excommunicated. And for every global warming skeptic with a hidden agenda, there are global warming alarmists with equally compelling hidden agendas of their own.