The Path of Greater Resistance

Or: A Skeptic’s Journey

We all have our favorite topics, and the half-dozen or so of you who regularly read this blog undoubtedly know that one of mine is Climate Change, AKA Global Warming, AKA Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, AKA Climate Alarmism. In this subject I have a minority viewpoint, but one that is, I think it fair to say, well-reasoned and strongly supported by data.

I have followed this topic for about as long as anyone, ever since it first emerged as an item of academic interest in the mid-1980s. For years I was very much on board with the narrative of “More CO2 = warmer climate.” It seemed to make sense and, well, we probably ought to be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels anyway. But my faith in this simple equivalence began to waver as the small but growing, rather vocal anti-carbon movement took on an increasingly strident tone, signaling the ascendance of passion over reason. The heated, borderline apocalyptic rhetoric seemed overblown, far out of sync with reality. It didn’t add up, and so I began to have doubts.

But it’s not enough just to say “I’m not so sure about that,” and let it go. You have to be able to back it up. So I immersed myself in the subject, became familiar with the physics, brushed up on the history and geology, read and researched until it felt like I had a pretty good handle on the thing. Ultimately, in the face of hard data the case that we humans were dangerously overheating the planet simply evaporated. There was no there, there; it was all smoke and mirrors and hype. I assumed that this would soon become common knowledge, and that as a consequence interest in Global Warming would fade away.

So it was with a mixture of irritation, disbelief, and something akin to horror that I watched the exact opposite happen. In the span of only a couple of years Global Warming graduated from footnote, of interest only to nerds and weather enthusiasts, to MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER! Eventually, absolutely everybody got in on the act. The Drumbeat of Doom, coming from every quarter, was endless and deafening. And as the planet-in-peril narrative hardened so did my opposition to it. Ambivalence gave way to uncompromising, hard-edged skepticism, supported by reasoning and evidence of course, but seasoned, admittedly, with more than a little attitude.

In retrospect, it could hardly have been otherwise because the issue had something for everyone. If you had an axe to grind, Global Warming was your baby. It seemed the perfect symbol of fatal human folly. It made a most excellent vehicle for moralistic bloviation. All things bright and beautiful and innocent were threatened by it. Oh those poor polar bears! It was made-to-order melodrama; Snidely Whiplash versus Polly Pureheart. The headlines practically wrote themselves: Big Oil Destroys Planet; Wealthy, Selfish First World to Blame. It was terrific political theater, and everyone got a chance to score easy virtue points.

The release in 2007 of former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth marked the full emergence of the Alarmist movement. A powerhouse of top-notch propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth deftly employed a one-two punch of emotional imagery and scary graphics to push the issue of Climate Change to center stage. It was the most-watched documentary of all time, and probably also the most influential. Millions of fence-straddlers found themselves converts to the Cause after a single viewing. The movie even managed, momentarily, to rattle this writer’s rather hardened cage.

Somewhere along the line, though, a really nasty totalitarian faction took charge, and the movement became a crusade, with all the charm and subtlety of the Spanish Inquisition. The new regime neither minced words nor took prisoners. Carbon dioxide was “poison.” The opposition was “evil incarnate.” These are actual quotes. Dissent within the ranks was ruthlessly suppressed, and those not sufficiently militant were denounced. It was very Stalinesque. Global Warming became the poster child for groupthink, a secular religion, and a political cudgel, with which the Enlightened very avidly bashed their inferiors at every opportunity. It wasn’t enough simply to have the upper hand; no other opinions were to be permitted. Climate skeptics were publicly equated with Holocaust Deniers. It was seriously suggested that they be jailed and tried as war criminals.

All of which deterred me only a little because I knew what I knew. Although I never went out of my way to engage others on this issue, to be a skeptical sort is to be cursed with a certain amount of compulsive contrariness. So if you were so kind as to start a debate, I would gladly finish it.

Nobody likes a fanatic, though, and I always tried to keep my devotion to the topic within reasonable bounds, so that it did not inadvertently cross that nebulous frontier separating “interest” from “obsession.” If this should ever happen, by the way, please let me know, immediately and in no uncertain terms.

Even at the best of times, to be a skeptic is to go against the grain. Our culture, and perhaps species, is conflicted about skepticism as a guiding philosophy. On the one hand, we respect the mavericks and rebels of the world, albeit with a few reservations. And we acknowledge the inherent good sense of “trust but verify.” On the other hand, those who persistently resist consensus, conventional wisdom, general accord–call it what you will–are frowned upon. They are seen as antisocial, recalcitrant, retrograde, or just plain irritating; they are outliers, cranks, weirdos wearing foil hats. Dude, what’s your problem? People habitually inclined toward skepticism often learn the hard way to keep it zipped. Because to speak freely is to suffer consequences.

When you stake out a minority position on a hot-button issue like Climate Change it doesn’t matter how well-reasoned your argument, it doesn’t matter how civil your presentation, it doesn’t matter how reasonably you present your case, you will get flak, and lots of it. True believers will all but physically attack you on general principle. Actually, sometimes they will physically attack you, but we’ll set that aside for the moment. They rarely actually bother to really read or listen to your arguments, mind you. They simply detect contrary, forbidden opinions and instantly, reflexively slip into outrage mode. You’re wrong; end of discussion. Nyah, nyah, nyah I can’t hear you.

That’s when they’re feeling charitable; sometimes they treat you to a barrage of abuse instead. Voice your opinions in the wrong group and you will be quite literally shouted down. Leave a skeptical comment on a high-profile site and watch the hate flow. Consider the following comment, by yours truly, and its rejoinder, left in response to a recent gloomy-doomy article on Truthdig.


Take these dire forecasts with a large allowance. For thirty years now we have been hearing forecast after forecast of imminent disaster, exactly none of which has actually happened. New York was supposed to have been underwater by 2000, The arctic was supposed to be ice-free by 2013, and snow was supposed to have essentially ended by now in the US and Canada.

In reality, the climate models have been miserable failures, with about 95 percent of them substantially over-predicting the amount of warming, primarily because they assume a strong positive feedback from CO2 forcing. In reality the expected amplification has not happened, as verified by satellite data and ground observations. [link added]

Climate is ferociously complex, involving literally thousands of interlinked, highly dynamic variables, only one of which is atmospheric CO2. Our computer models are just not sophisticated enough to accurately predict the behavior of such an intricate system. It makes no sense to place unwavering faith in forecasts for decades in the future based on these unreliable models.

To which one Mulga Mumblebrain responded thus:

Either moronic ignorance, or denialist mendacity. Every one of your assertions is incorrect, as we expect from denialist trolls. Just why are you doing your sordid worst to ensure the deaths of billions? Ot [sic] is that Evil that I can still not yet comprehend.

Ouch! And that’s one of the printable ones. Often they are a lot more–how shall we put this–indelicate.

Now Truthdig isn’t exactly a mainstream publication, and its readers skew strongly Left. But “Left” shouldn’t mean “Left your brain and your manners at the door.” Consider for a moment the irony of self-proclaimed purveyors of “tolerance” breaking out the pitchforks and torches, metaphorically speaking, to silence a contrary but reasonable opinion.

Hateful online comments are the least of it. For years, any prominent person brave or foolish enough to resist the Green juggernaut would find themselves instantly crushed by a hail of harsh personal and professional attacks. Careers and relationships by the thousands have been destroyed on the basis of remarks innocently made in candid, unguarded moments. I have witnessed the madness firsthand. My oldest and dearest friend and I nearly came to blows not long ago, no exaggeration, when he loudly, in public, called me [“an effing] moron” for my stance on Climate Change. I have lost business and been disinvited from social events when my views became known. And it’s not as though I push these viewpoints on anyone, either. Though I have written about the subject extensively, generally speaking I will not bring it up in person unless you do so first. And even then I will probably gauge your receptiveness before proceeding.

For the life of me I cannot imagine ever sacrificing a relationship over a mere difference of opinion. But I may be in the minority here. The willingness to excommunicate those who think and act differently is so widespread, so deep-seated that you have to assume it is of organic origin, a defensive behavior, perhaps, hard-wired into our species.

We humans are social animals, and readily organize ourselves into groups based on some commonality. Furthermore, we derive much of our crucial sense of identity from our membership in such groups. There is an underlying biological purpose to this banding together, of course, because to be part of a cohesive social unit greatly enhances your odds of survival in an uncertain world. So from an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense that when the group is imperiled by some contrary person or bit of information, we respond, individually and collectively, by casting the threat into outer darkness.

Even though Alarmists lean heavily on emotional appeals, there is a certain logic in the way that they frame their case, the better to take advantage of human cognitive shortcomings. Normal but dramatic events like an unusually heavy rainfall or a wildfire or an iceshelf peeling off are played up as harbingers of catastrophe. Look; it’s already happening! But the real threat is always some time in the intermediate future, a few decades away at most; near enough to be concerning, but not so distant as to be an abstraction. And it’s never some minor thing that’s coming, either, like ring-tailed lemurs having to change their diet. It’s floods of biblical proportion, droughts like the Dust Bowl times ten, Category 11 hurricanes, cities washed away by rampaging seas, and acres of drowned polar bear cubs. Preferably in ALL CAPS, as funereal music plays. But because the threats, awful as they may be, are always in the future, they can never be disproved.

Lately though, Climate Alarmism has taken a pretty serious beating. Cracks are beginning to appear in the facade. The public has turned away from the issue in droves, perhaps out of boredom, perhaps out of apocalypse fatigue. Or perhaps because John and Jane Q have this thing called “common sense,” which has once again reasserted itself after the umpteeth failed prediction of Imminent Disaster. Climate Change, once near the top of the list of public worries, is now close to the bottom. The Trump administration has also downgraded Climate Change as a priority, predictably provoking a backlash among the Perpetually Outraged. And scientists themselves are speaking out in increasing numbers as they sense the Green stranglehold on their profession finally loosening. All of this is bad news for those living on government grants or selling overpriced green technology and gewgaws. But it is good news for those who support policies based on realism and good sense.

It would be difficult to overstate what’s at stake here. For Alarmists, of course, Climate Change is no less than an imminent existential threat; the future of the planet and its inhabitants hangs in the balance. In their view, absent immediate, radical measures, our planet will perish. The End. And they are generally quite firm on this point, with little if any wiggle room.

As you might imagine, skeptics have a rather different take. We also fear for the future, but for entirely different reasons. We see a pretty good civilization threatened by irrational, scientifically ignorant policies which, if carried to their logical ends, could cause catastrophic, basically irreversible damage to the economy, i.e. the system that distributes  sustenance, provisions, and energy. Even in its mildest form the Green Agenda would indisputably cause hardship by raising costs, lowering living standards, limiting choices, and restricting freedoms. Fully implemented, the Green agenda would radically transform our society beyond recognition. It would also condemn the world’s poor to a life of permanent, abject poverty by eliminating their access to affordable energy.

Nevertheless the question remains: How could a person continue to be skeptical of Global Warming in the face of what is, in fact, pretty convincing evidence?

Trick question. Actually it’s pretty clear that we are in a warming phase, and no well-informed person would argue otherwise. But this is not a bad thing when you consider the alternative. After all, only 20,000 years ago–the blink of an eye, geologically speaking–our planet was in the grip of an intense cold spell that caused upwards of twenty five percent of its surface to be covered with glaciers many thousands of feet thick. And for most of the last two and a half million years or so, with only occasional breaks such as our current interglacial interlude, this type of climate has been the rule. We’ve been warm and we’ve been cold, and warm is better, almost any way you shake it.

Having accepted this central premise, three pertinent questions then follow: (1) Are humans responsible? (2) If so to what degree? and (3) Should we be worried?

There is this perception, fostered by Alarmists, that you cannot possibly understand the issue of Climate Change unless you are one of the initiated, i.e. a certified Climate Scientist. Nonsense. You don’t need a graduate degree to be fluent in this subject. Just focus on the big picture, and leave the minute, distracting details to the quants. Forest, trees.

Perspective is everything. There are many good, capable scientists who lean Alarmist, in part, I think, precisely because they cannot see the forest for the trees. Their very narrow specialties lead them to focus not to the overall system but on some minuscule, malfunctioning piece of it. They see not the forest, nor even an individual tree, but rather a single stoma on a single leaf on a single branch. This stoma, you see, has an irregularity; it does not open and close quite as it should, which compromises its function. And this is a problem, because, well, what if all the other stomae were to become so afflicted? Never mind that there is no indication that this alarming potential will ever be realized. Never mind that the condition might be transient and completely natural. Never mind that most all of the billions of stomae on the tens of thousands of trees that make up the forest are functioning more or less normally at any given moment. Never mind that the forest as a whole seems to be doing just fine.

To engage with Alarmists can be an exercise in forbearance. You must first get past the deliberate distractions and misdirection they are wont to hurl at you. Their typical first line of attack, for example, is to claim that Skeptics “deny the reality” of Climate Change. Which is totally disingenuous because, again, pretty much nobody worth listening to is saying such a thing. But if you are a zealot the last thing you want is for your opponents to appear reasonable, so this inconvenient fact must be suppressed, and you must do everything in your power to paint the opposition as basically unhinged. The persistent, purposeful misdirection emanating from the Alarmist camp is your first clue that you are dealing not with logical actors, but with ideologues.

To defeat an illogical, ideologically motivated opponent it isn’t enough to make one or two good points; they will simply talk right over them. Blah blah Talking Point blah blah Talking Point blah blah blah blah. I’m sorry; were you saying something? To prevail against such an opponent you must overwhelm them with factual firepower. You’ll know you’re winning when they stop with the talking points and start with the personal attacks. Fortunately, there is no shortage of ammunition to aid you in this effort, should you be so inclined. Herewith a few key points to get you started:

(1) The question of why our climate is getting warmer is a legitimate one, because if it is a very recent phenomenon, it is at least theoretically possible that there is a human connection. Conversely, if the trend goes back centuries, it is much more likely to be of natural origin, because we have been cranking out CO2 in really large quantities for only a few decades. Here the pattern is clear. Our current warm phase began about 350 years ago, when the Little Ice Age, the most intense cold spell in maybe 8000 years, bottomed out and began to abate. The trend began to accelerate about 200 years ago, as the recovery from the LIA really got going. It hasn’t been an unbroken upward trend, however; there have been lots of little ups and downs. Note that the last “down” cycle, which ended only about forty years ago, also generated a great deal of concern at the time among those prone to worry.

Significantly, the vast majority of the “extra” CO2 beyond 280 parts per million (PPM)–the Pleistocene average–was added after 1940. So this point alone effectively eliminates human industrial activity as a major cause of Climate Change. Which is why I put it first.

(2) Nobody is debating the underlying physics. Increase or decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and there will be some kind of effect. What is debatable is the sensitivity of the climate to such changes. How responsive is it to variations in the concentration of atmospheric CO2? A little; a lot? hardly; extremely? The answer is far from obvious.

This thing we call climate is fantastically, incomprehensibly complex, the product of literally thousands of variables interacting dynamically, over time, though enormous volumes of water and air covering highly variable terrain. In addition the Earth has a complex mode of rotation and an orbit about the sun that varies continuously, which affect the amount and distribution of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. And the sun itself has a widely fluctuating energy output.

Atmospheric CO2 is one of many, many factors affecting climate, and is of only median importance at best, in spite of what you have been repeatedly told. So it is not at all unreasonable to wonder if maybe its influence has been overstated. Think about it: Does it really make sense that the modification of just one variable out of thousands, not a very important one either, by a mere thirty percent, could cause all hell to break loose?  You have to figure that with billions of years of history behind it, the system is a little more resilient than that.

(3) CO2 is, by definition, a trace gas, currently comprising only about 400 parts in every million of the atmosphere (.04 percent.) To visualize that proportion, think of a grid, 100 wide by 100 deep. Four squares of that grid represent .04 percent of the total.

(4) CO2 is in no meaningful sense a “pollutant,” as the EPA has disingenuously categorized it, a nakedly political action, scientifically indefensible, and deeply revealing of the mindset of Alarmism, which may be summarized as: Don’t confuse us with the facts.

All life depends on carbon dioxide, directly or indirectly, because plants require it to build tissue. Furthermore it is the normal by-product of respiration; every living thing on the planet produces some amount of it. Since the onset of the current Ice Age, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has actually been anomalously low, so low that it has restricted the amount of plant growth that may occur.

Far from being harmful, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been a boon for the planet’s vegetation, responsible for billions of tons of additional plant growth. Our planet has added a continent’s worth of vegetation in the last few decades thanks to the additional CO2. We should welcome the modest increase in this scarce yet essential gas, not be alarmed by it. However, we probably should be alarmed that the Federal Agency in charge of environmental matters, with a staff of thousands and a budget of billions, should develop policy affecting every single American based on an elementary, egregious error.

(5) At no point in recorded history has a spike in atmospheric CO2 produced an instantaneous surge in temperature. And there are lots of things that can cause CO2 spikes, starting with volcanic activity. Because of thermal inertia the modest temperature surge that does occur following a CO2 spike usually comes after a lag of several centuries. Yet climate alarmists ignore this to assert that this time, unlike all the other times, there is a lockstep relationship between the recent CO2 increase and temperature. In fact, in recent history the CO2 and temperature trends have been strongly congruent only for the period 1976-2000. This happenstance is, of course, the foundation for the whole Global Warming movement.

(6) A  world that was warmer for any reason would also be one with more atmospheric CO2. There is, at any given time, about 50 times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans as in the atmosphere. Because the solubility of CO2 in water varies inversely with temperature, when the ocean warms up, some of that dissolved CO2 is released, raising the atmospheric concentration thereof. A warmer world would also be one with more biologic activity, hence more respiration, hence more CO2. Our recent surge in CO2 could well be the effect of warming temperatures, not the cause.

(7) The overwhelming majority of atmospheric CO2 is of natural origin. Human activity is responsible for only about 36 of the 800 gigatons of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, or about 4.5 percent. To put it another way, about 20 of the current 400 PPM of atmospheric CO2 are of human origin. And half of that is consumed inside of a year by plants. Which, if they could speak, would almost certainly say “Thank you very much; please send more,” because from their perspective, there has been an acute CO2 shortage for at least the last few hundred thousand years. The Pleistocene  normal (the period defined by the current ice age; roughly the last 2.5 million years) has been about 280 PPM. But for the 500 million years or so before that, the average CO2 concentration was around 1600 PPM. At the height of the Eocene epoch, fifty-five million years ago, it was about five times higher than that, and the planet teemed with life from pole to pole.

(8)  CO2 on its own enables only a modest amount of warming. This is basic physics. It is generally agreed that a doubling of CO2 over the Pleistocene average, to 560 PPM, would, theoretically, trigger a temperature rise of about 1.1 degrees C at ground level, all other things being equal. The scary predictions of 5 and 6 degree increases depend on the existence of “positive feedback loops,” in which increased cloud cover triggers an enhanced greenhouse effect.

However, this presumed feedback loop has thus far failed to materialize. Satellite data indicates that the opposite has actually happened. Rising temperatures cause slightly more cloud cover, yes, but most of the incoming solar radiation simply bounces off the cloud tops and back into space. And the condensation of water at the cloud tops releases heat, most of which also escapes into space. So the 1.1 degree hike ends up being trimmed to about half a degree. Which most people would probably agree is not that worrisome.

(9) CO2 is only moderately effective as a greenhouse gas, and is greatly outperformed by water vapor, which has a much broader absorption spectrum and is up to fifty times as abundant in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the heat absorption properties of CO2 diminish sharply above 100 ppm. So no matter how much the concentration of CO2 increases beyond the current level, it is likely to have little impact.

(10)  The “97 percent consensus” figure, a key tenet of Alarmism, repeated until it hurts, is a fabrication, manufactured by partisans with political goals. It does not exist, never did, and has been abundantly refuted. But it wouldn’t matter anyway because science is not like a high school group project. Science proceeds by evidence and investigation, motivated by a healthy skepticism, not “consensus.” If science were consensus-driven we would still believe in phrenology and an earth-centered universe.

The false consensus has persisted only because it is so very useful as a propaganda tool. You can quote it ad nauseum without it ever losing its effectiveness. If you say it in a very authoritative tone of voice, hardly anyone will think to question it. Believe in it and you can be part  of the “in” crowd without actually having to think. And those who accept this obviously overwhelming validation are by definition superior to those who do not.

(11) The famous “hockey stick” graph, the centerpiece of the Alarmist message, the silent star of An Inconvenient Truth, which shows temperatures surging upward in the last few decades after a flat thousand years, is a product of flawed methodology and faulty statistical methods. Even friendly researchers were unable to reproduce it. And it has been completely, irretrievably, utterly refuted. Furthermore, Michael Mann, the scientist who birthed it and who achieved international fame because of it, is a thin-skinned, brittle paragon of noxious partisanship, quick to personally attack critics in the harshest terms. For years Mann claimed, falsely, to be Nobel prize winner, and sued those who rightly contradicted him. One of them, having won his defamation suit, went on to publish a blistering critique.

(12) The Climate Alarmism industry is dominated by personalities, which should give you some idea as to its credibility. Celebrity scientists like David Suzuki and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who haven’t been in a lab in decades, regularly generate headlines with their dire warnings and somber pronouncements. Actual celebrities like Leonard DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence lecture the rest of us about the need to reduce our carbon footprints as they jet about the planet in private planes, living notably extravagant, carbon-intense lifestyles.

The current darling of the Alarmist crowd is an oddity named Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer turned stand-up comic turned children’s science show host turned Global Warming doomsayer. Ask Bill how much of Global Warming is the fault of humans and he will, without a moment’s hesitation, tell you “100 percent,” instantly violating perhaps THE bedrock principle of science, which recognizes the impossibility of certainty.

(13) The so-called “deniers” are not an isolated group of cranks, as Alarmists are fond of insisting. Recent polls show that about half of meteorologists and two-thirds of Geoscientists (geologists and geophysicists) explicitly reject Climate Alarmism. This is up significantly from a couple of years ago. In every field of science serious, well-credentialed, respected researchers by the thousands have, at great risk to their careers, opposed the Alarmist narrative. They do so because Alarmist groupthink has poisoned the academic climate, no pun intended, to the detriment of the entire profession. You just don’t hear about it because the mainstream media does not cover it, in the same way that it did not cover the shots fired at John Christy’s office after the March for Science, referenced earlier. Just as a thought experiment, imagine the media reaction had someone fired those shots in the direction of Michael Mann, or Al Gore. Or even Bill Nye. The word “frenzied” comes to mind.

While we’re on the subject, “denier” is a deliberately insulting, inflammatory term intended to imply a link between skeptics and the odious, delusional Holocaust Deniers. There is also an unintentional religious flavor to it, because when you label someone a “denier” you are basically calling them a “heretic.” And it has pretty much the same effect. Interestingly, the Alarmist community seems to have finally figured this out, and is beginning to substitute the less-offensive but still demeaning term “denialist.” Not everyone has gotten the memo, though. Al Gore, the Grand Poobah of Climate Alarmism, who has profited handsomely from it, who got a C and a D in the only two science classes he took in college, and who is the exact opposite of a real scientist, still uses it regularly.

(14)  A hell of a lot of money stands to be made from Climate Alarmism, almost none from the opposition. The US government annually hands out great gobs of money in grants and subsidies to those who study global warming and its mitigation, or who develop “green” technologies. The total figure for the last 30 or so years is close to 100 billion. With a “B.” By contrast, over that same span, the combined total of monies granted to so-called “deniers” by interested parties, e.g. fossil-fuel corporations, is calculated to be about $25 million. Billions versus millions. That’s a pretty lopsided ratio. You can see this disparity in the media produced by each camp. Alarmist websites and media uniformly feature high production values, with lots of expensive, glossy special effects, stirring music, and eye-catching graphics. By dramatic contrast, skeptical blogs, websites, and media are bare bones, lightly funded affairs, staffed almost entirely by volunteers, and tend to be heavy on facts and data but light on razzle-dazzle.

(15) Global warming alarmists have hugely, irresponsibly oversimplified what is in fact a stupendously complex issue. When they say that the science is “settled,” something that literally cannot be because science by definition is never settled, what they really mean is “Don’t question it.”  Which ought to (a) insult your intelligence, and (b) make you wonder what their real motives are.

(16) Finally, cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels, is what allows this wonderful advanced civilization, which we are so incredibly blessed to have, to exist. Because of fossil fuels, we are able to lead decent, comfortable, safe lives. Severely restrict fossil fuels and you will condemn billions to perpetual poverty, and, quite possibly cause the collapse of civilization. Is this system perfect? No, of course not. But its benefits vastly outweigh its risks. Furthermore, regardless of what you have been told, renewables cannot, on any reasonable time frame at any reasonable cost, replace more than a fraction of the energy now supplied by fossil fuels. You want a carbon-free world? Be careful what you wish for. Freezing in the dark, impoverished and starving, isn’t much of a lifestyle.

Skeptics are made, not born. Ironically, this writer might not have become one had the Alarmists not so badly overplayed their hand. But fanatics don’t do nuance. Blinded by a toxic blend of arrogance, ignorance, and totalitarian zeal, they fly the plane right into the ground every single time. By the time it’s over, those who so badly wanted to change the world will have alienated almost everyone, in the process wasting the opportunity to effect real and lasting positive change.

In five or ten or fifteen years, when the climate once again turns indisputably cooler and Global Warming is quietly forgotten, how will they react? I suspect that rather than admit error, they will declare victory and get the hell out, loudly claiming credit as they exit stage left. “We did it; we saved the Earth,” they will proclaim, over and over, to no one in particular, mesmerized by the sound of their own voices.

Tagged , .


  1. Scott, a true tour de force. Thanks for your riveting, rational and realistic reasoning.
    I always greatly enjoy your writings.

  2. Models (including climate models) general model the modellers world view and biases, rather than reality. If you run long term models like the IPCC, then reality will routinely and regularly slap you in the face, which is why they are continually adjusting their models to dial back towards non-alarming (relatively) reality. If they dont they look stupid and what credibility remains is further damaged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *