The global warming controversy

The Wall Street Journal's policy of news constipation — bottling up its content so that it's accessible to subscribers only — has made it difficult finding out what Richard Lindzen really said in his contrarian article in the Journal entitled "There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming." Instead, there's an abundance of comment from both sides posted across the web, with each side claiming the other's selected "science" is politically motivated.

I would reprint the Lindzen article here probably just to irritate the Journal, but that would take up too much room. Fortunately, the full text of the opinion piece is available at johnbatchelorshow.com and here, posted on the Meteorological Station of the Lycée Classique de Diekirch [Luxembourg] website. (We'll let the Journal's copyright police go after them.)

With all the salvos being fired back and forth, it's hard to tell where the truth really lies. While it's clear that there are individuals with good scientific credentials cautioning us about overreacting to global warming, the preponderance of evidence, as well as the reaction of many of the planet's more realistic governments and businesses, indicates that global warming is something to be reckoned with.

Science is never exact. It only measures probablilites. In this case the probability that the planet is warming and that humakind is at least partially the cause is high. There will be legitimate researchers arguing the contrary, and there will be politicians and pundits, for whatever reason, paroting their case.

Historically, science telling us what we don't want to hear has often engendered derision. And too, current "science" has sometimes been wrong. The best we can do is use whatever evidence is available to ferret out the truth. And when there is conflicting evidence, the best decision is to rely on the prevailing opinion of the experts.

LP