Debate enthusiasts will love this long, but worthy video showing Texas A&M atmospheric scientist Andy Dessler mopping the floor with his increasingly out-of-touch colleague from MIT, Dick Lindzen.
The fact of Desslerโs victory is a value judgment that you may not trust without watching the video yourself. But speaking of value judgments, Dessler got off a great shot during his rebuttal, in which he commented on how often Lindzen had said that climate change presents โno cause forย alarm.โ
That, Dessler pointed out, is also a value judgment – not a scientific finding,ย adding:
โBefore the lecture, he (Prof. Lindzen) was smoking. Thatโs a risk. Heโs decided thatโs a risk heโs willing to take. But not everybody would take that risk, so when he says thereโs no cause for concern, heโs giving you his valueย judgment.โ
Proceeding beyond the degree to which Lindzen has bad breath – as well as bad judgment – the lecture hosts at the University of Virginia School of Law jumped in with two policy presenters, Jonathan Cannon, making all kinds of sense, and Jason Johnston bending over backwards to argue that because economists canโt accurately put a cost on the coming climate armageddon, we shouldnโt bother taking out any insurance to prevent it. (Pass that man a pack of Camels. Itโll make it easier for him to blow smoke in the future.)
