Believe it or not, Richard S. Lindzen did not write this article making my point about those trained in science seeing global warming differently
at my request. More importantly, he also makes Sun Tzuâ€™s key point about the nature of the climate
in opposition to the way the climate is characterized in the global warming debate:
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
Lindzen's take is that the fictitious global warming "consensus" is inherent in the problems with the media reporting science and even points out that this is a moral crusade echoing the idea that it arises from religious beliefs. I think he makes my point clearly and concisely, especially in the difference between how "global warming" is viewed by those trained in science versus those without such training (like a frequent commenter who comes to mind):
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.
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
UPDATE: It occurs to me that the debate about global warming, at least as conducting on the blog, is something of a demonstration of what the scientific method is all about. There is no final "truth," but, over time, evidence accumulates for certain points of view while opposing points of view become harder and harder to defend because of the absence of supporting evidence. All science is based on a strategic foundaiton: positions must be established, defending, and advanced. This is different than the "media" approach, which seeks only to create sensational splashes that the water quickly fills in again, leaving not a trace. Positions versus splashes, maybe I will use that as an theme for my next book, The Power Curve.