Justin Gillis, the New York Times’ eco-activist has an article on the role of clouds in climate and the dispute over their impact. It is, in essence, an extended pop at the work of Richard Lindzen.
Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
Most scientists agree that the man-induced
increase in atmospheric CO2 should cause
some increase in global temperature. The
alarmists declare that feedback mechanisms
will lead to far greater warming than the
direct effect of the increased CO2.
It hasn’t happened. In fact, some years the
temperature has actually gone down. Forget
feedbacks for a moment. The temperature
went down even with the continued increase
in atmospheric CO2. This is direct empirical
evidence that there are other forces
controlling climate that overwhelm any
impact that atmospheric CO2 is having.
What these forces are, we don’t know.
And we don’t need to. We know that Man
has nothing to do with it. It will be what it
will be.
What is the role of clouds? I don’t care.
What is the role of climate scientists?
I can’t see one. They can’t predict
anything; they provide no useful output.
97 out of 100 working climate scientists
say, “Blah, blah, blah.” It’s time we have
fewer than 100 climate scientists.
Climatologists you mean. Hardly a science giving predictions. Astrology also gives predictions which are on equal footing in their predictive value.