The "Intimidate, Bait-and-switch, Repeat" method for global warming hype...

Richard Lindzen says don't believe the hype...

... So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

---

promoting visions of disaster
constitutes nothing so much
as a bait-and-switch scam

---

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Ken Connor warns not to dismiss Al Gore's arguments simply because he is Al Gore. That's right, of course, but also a lot to ask.

-Home-