End the Climate Change Hysteria

If you care to cut through the BS and examine the truth about global warming, there is no better guide than Richard Lindzen. Formerly Lindzen headed the climate science lab at MIT. He is one of the nation's most distinguished scientists. Recently, a French journalist interviewed him.

In this excerpt he discusses the special interests who have aligned themselves to push apocalyptic visions of climate change hysteria on an unsuspecting and uninformed public:

The issue of climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong motivations for believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order: leftist economists for whom global warming represents a supreme example of market failure, as well as a wonderful opportunity to suggest correctives; UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the road to global governance; third world dictators who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid–ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries; environmental activists who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their numerous NGO’s; crony capitalists who see the immense sums being made available for “sustainable” energy;government regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true;newly minted billionaires who find the issue of “saving the planet” appropriately suitable for their grandiose pretentions; politicians who can fasten on to global warming as an issue where they can act as demagogues without fear of contradiction from reality or complaint from the purported beneficiaries of their actions... And above all, quite naturally, join the chorus of advocates, experts,advisors etc., etc.

You use a picture called "iron triangle"-what does it mean?It’s a picture I use to describe the way it works between scientifics, politicians, medias...

At one vertex of the triangle, are the scientists who make meaningless or ambiguous statements. The scientific assessment of Working Group 1 of the IPCC is full of such statements. Then there is a second vertex:that of the advocates and media that “translate” the statements into alarmist declarations; theadvocates also include the IPCC’s WG2 and WG3 that deal with impacts and mitigation by assuming worst case of scenarios from WG1. Politicians also are often part of the advocacy efforts. The third vertex consists in the politicians who respond to alarm by feeding more money to the scientists in the first vertex. Should the scientist ever feel any guilt over the matter, it is assuaged by two irresistible factors: the advocates define public virtue, and his administrators are delighted with the grant overhead…

We would all do well to read the entire interview.