I am not generally a fan of The Weekly Standard
but that has more to do with its FP. Here's is something on Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen:
Granted, Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and . . . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words....http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...he_773268.html
But Lindzen rejects the dire projections. For one thing, he says that the Summary for Policymakers is an inherently problematic document. The IPCC report itself, weighing in at thousands of pages, is “not terrible. It’s not unbiased, but the bias [is] more or less to limit your criticism of models,” he says. The Summary for Policymakers, on the other hand—the only part of the report that the media and the politicians pay any attention to—“rips out doubts to a large extent. . . . [Furthermore], government representatives have the final say on the summary.” Thus, while the full IPPC report demonstrates a significant amount of doubt among scientists, the essentially political Summary for Policymakers filters it out.
There was a thread where I counted up how many were actual scientists attended the ICC--not many.
Whenever, I see a headline on GW alarmist with the generality "Scientists" say.....I look for who it is. Most of the time it's activists being cited with maybe one scientist--sometimes none just the activists using the plural form of scientist.
Last week saw a news clip of Kerry naming issues that crossed borders and he mentioned global warming. Like all the left's past collectivism--globalism is it's latest application.