Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence, says Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

BY RICHARD LINDZEN

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

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 supposedly is their basis.

[...]

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[almaty 19]

damn..black balling int he world of science..just wrong

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Unfortunately, "toe the line" and "favouritism" have always been active in academics--grants have long been awarded based on how the ones on the committee get along with the applicant (as my dad is a retired math prof).

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I can't find the link now but...

I just read a story that the glaciers in Greenland are actually expanding overall. True that glaciers on the coast of greenland are shrinking but the glaciers internally are more than making up for the loss. A net increase.

The same is happening on the poles.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE.