I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry

of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the

climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear

the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global

warming or, as it is now called -- climate change.

There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two

are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists

and media. Group one is associated with the scientific

part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1).

These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due

to man’s burning of fossil fuels -- oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide,

into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem.

This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics. We note that there are many reasons why the

climate changes -- the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth,

as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence

that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor. But actually there is much agreement between

both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

1) The climate is always changing. 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life

on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

4) Over this period (the past two centuries),

the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees

Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse

emissions been sufficient to play a role. 5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident

prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC, acknowledged

in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuels

leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts.

So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue.

Here’s where Group Three comes in -- the politicians, environmentalists, and media.

Global Warming Alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they

most want: For politicians it’s money and power. For environmentalists it’s money

for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea

that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media it’s ideology,

money, and headlines -- doomsday scenarios sell.

Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists outside of climate physics have jumped on

the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian

civil war. And, crony capitalists have eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments

have so lavishly provided. Unfortunately, group three is winning the

argument because they have drowned out the serious debate that should be going on.

But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare

a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.

I’m Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, for PragerUniversity.