In a recent Gallup Poll on voter priorities, the environment finished dead last in a field of fifteen. Gallup recently released another new poll focused exclusively on the environment. In that poll, global warming finished dead last in a field of nine, behind the extinction of plants and animal, loss of tropical rain forests, and urban sprawl.
So, according to Gallup, the environment is the least important issues to voters, and amongst environmental issues, global warming is the least important issue to voters. Times have changed.
Even abroad, global warming is being mocked. Here’s a comical exchange from Australia, where Australia’s Climate Commissioner was forced to admit that, even if every single country, including China, India and Russia, committed to greenhouse gas reductions, it would take a thousand years to determine whether or not those reductions would have an impact on global warming. And, in my experience, if a global warming alarmist says something will take a 1,000 years, its safe to assume it will take 10,000 years.
As support for global warming alarmism fades, its easy to forget how difficult it was to debate the issue at the height of global warming alarmism. The more distinguished the critic, the more that critic had to lose. It took a lot of guts for a guy like Richard Lindzen, a giant in the field of climatology, to take a stand against global warming alarmism back then.
I reference Lindzen because he is an important figure in this debate, I’m an admirer, and because he hails from our own backyard. Born in Massachusetts, Lindzen graduated from Harvard before embarking on a distinguished career as an atmospheric physicist at Chicago, Harvard and MIT. Presently, he is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. And I imagine its not easy being a leading global warming skeptic from the People’s Republic of Cambridge.
For years, Lindzen meticulously picked apart the “science” behind global warming with little approbation and much condemnation. Along with his brilliance and professionalism, his courage in the face of scathing opposition, and his efforts to expose the political forces coercing and suppressing climate science deserve recognition. Lindzen had no political affiliations, no agenda, and no axe to grind. He was just a man committed to the integrity of science, who became disturbed by the political peer pressure exerted on scientists to conform to politically correct views on global warming. Lindzen feared that the politicization of global warming would set back climatology decades. With Lindzen, it is science first, second, third and politics never.
Now, thanks to efforts of guys like Lindzen, more and more scientists no longer fear compelled to toe the politically correct line on global warming, and that manipulated “consensus” on global warming is falling apart.