Is There No Opposing Science To Global Warming?

You'd think there isn't. One politician says there isn't. Heck, he went further, saying if you hear any doubt, ignore it. "There is no science on the other side." Well, there is opposing science, but what happens when there is so much money tied up in making sure there is global warming that you're going to get sued if you say anything else? Ask M.I.T.'s Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen; he's being sued by the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Why? "We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says Environmental Defense attorney Jim Marston. Fake science is a pretty serious charge. Scientists are, by nature, skeptics. Or they should be. Yes, there are segments of the scientific population that lock-step with whatever the popular theory is, like evolution and global warming, but most scientists just need proof. But Marston has an interesting strategy. Lump the guy in with evil tobacco companies. To be frank, most scientists don't understand the whole tobacco controversy either. Of course tobacco is bad for you. Who didn't know that? They knew that in the 1700s. Heck, cigarettes have only been around 130 years or so. Before that it was all cigars and pipes ... and people inhaled them. It's like me suing KFC if they do a study that says their chicken tastes good - or finding ways to make it better. If they don't publish that study are they "suppressing" it? I guess so. I'm neither a smoker or a crazed anti-smoking zealot so my thinking is too clear to get in the newspapers about it. Why is Lindzen in so much trouble? He acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not. Yes, that is the big threat to the environmental lobbysists and Al Gore's Presidential candidacy. There is opposing science but they will sue to make sure you never hear it. `We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why." Now, I can find a scientist to say almost anything. I can find a scientist to come out against clean water if I look hard enough so no one should be bothered if it's one person saying global warming is exaggerated. If the evidence is overwhelming there is no harm in letting him be heard. But suing a scientist because he doesn't believe circumstantial evidence?? I think science will have to take a stand on this one. Article Here.