A Distinguished Professor of Meteorology Makes the Case for Scientific Skepticism on Global Warming

Richard S. Lindzen is a distinguished professior of meteorology at MIT. On Nov. 30 he published a column in the Wall Street Journal on the scientific case for skepticism over global warming activism. It is the best statement of that case that I have seen. It is based on the fact, which not even global warming activists now challenge, that there has been no discernible increase in the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA) --the principal measure of global temperature--since 1998, after a measured GATA increase of 1.5 degrees F since the middle of the 19th century when the industrial revolution began.

His article is detailed and requires intensive effort to understand. I had to read and re-read several sections before I fully understood what Dr. Lindzen was saying. However, I found his arguments to be compelling. His critique is particularly devastating on the flaws in the modelling used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming activists to make the case for CO2-caused global warming fit the absence of evidence for the climate mechanisms that their theory requires; namely high CO2 sensitivity or the existence of the so-called positive feedback loop.

The reaction of global warming activists to this article are predictable. They will dismiss Professor Lindzen as a tool of the energy companies. Because the article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, they will dismiss it as a shill piece promoted by corporate America.

Ask yourself whether you believe that the case for global warming is strong enough to justify the loss of national sovereignty and the economic burden on developed and developing economies that an international cap and trade regime would require.