This Is What Happens When a Leftist-Environmentalist Investigates the Claims of Climate Change Propagandists

Some of my favorite stories are those where a person begins as a true believer in one dangerous myth or another but then critically analyzes his assumptions and is forced to abandon his false beliefs.

Here is the story of a man who started out as a fairly typical environmentalist-leftist-liberal Democrat kind of guy who had swallowed the propaganda over CO2 and climate change, and even wrote his own book of propaganda on the issue. But as he looked more closely at the data, he started coming to a different conclusion.

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems.

This guy deserves a lot of credit for investigating the issue in the first place. It is always so much easier to continue walking around in a deluded haze of lies churned out by the hivemind.

His piece proceeds to offer a series of propositions then proceeds to carefully substantiate them.

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

  9. No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.

  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

This is a long and well researched article and deserves to be widely read. Be sure to watch the linked videos as well.

We often overlook the fact that evidence has causal power and it pushes the mind towards truth — if this were not so, we could never say that evidence caused someone to come to a conclusion. Any honest person who examines the evidence should be hard pressed to keep swallowing the endless lies and deception about climate change, which are merely tools for those who seek political power, centrally planned economies, and crony capitalism.

Siegel’s article should be read by everyone.

—


5 Responses to This Is What Happens When a Leftist-Environmentalist Investigates the Claims of Climate Change Propagandists

  1. Regardless, the toxic and filthy ways we obtain energy and the wildly wasteful ways we consume it should offend us all, free marketeers or not. The whole world wants to live like us and they are on a trajectory to do so. Not if, when. To pretend that this alarm is somehow suspect isn’t brave independent thinking, it’s simple selfishness and greed. We make slow progress on many environmental fronts but not at a pace to reduce human impacts. Clean energy production and efficient end use isn’t a plot its the only sane way forward. Achieving that goal will ensure that we have the means to tackle everything else.

  2. CMR says:

    Your post seems to have a lot of slogans strung together, but nothing in terms of real action plans or understanding of economic cause-and-effect. Why should the world want to live like us? We are healthy and wealthy and it is no coincidence that we consume a lot of fossil fuels per capita.

    “Toxic and filthy ways we obtain energy” — the shift to fossil fuels was a huge improvement for the environment. It’s production involves environmental issues that should be improved but at the margin it’s still a relatively clean choice.

    “wildly wasteful ways we consume it” — according to who? To you?

    “Clean energy production and efficient end use isn’t a plot its the only sane way forward.” It is not sane to subsidize crony capitalist ‘clean energy’. The best way to have ‘efficient end use’ is to minimize government involvement and allow market price discovery for energy, not to tax unpopular energy and subsidize inefficient energy.

    What exactly are you proposing that would make the world better? If you reply, please give more than slogans.

  3. Toxic and filthy is an understatement. Was your point that it’s better than rubbing sticks together? Seven billion energy consumers is the problem and no part of the natural world is left untouched. And wasteful? Visit any garbage dump. Our housing is shit, even though we figured this out in the 70s. Your free market cant is disingenuous at best. Merit? Free? The market is fatally distorted and you know it. My point is that all resources need to be used carefully. Something that even conservatives should find acceptable. Anyway, you’re thoroughly unpleasant and not worth typing for.

    • CMR says:

      We consider it a compliment to be called “thoroughly unpleasant,” so thanks!

      Once again, you are sloganeering. You say “all resources need to be used carefully.” Well darn, that’s profound! Seriously, no one in the world would disagree with that. It’s about as banal as saying “people shouldn’t do evil stuff.” So you are good at throwing around lame slogans, but still failing to offer any concrete proposition about what would make the world better for the human race. Who decides what it means to use resources “carefully”? You? Politicians and bureaucrats? Who?

      Basically you are just saying everything sucks. Well great. So your big problems are having “seven billion energy consumers” and garbage dumps, and you think “our housing is shit”. Ok cool. Maybe you’d prefer that everyone live like cavemen, so they don’t use fossil fuels for energy and they don’t throw telephone books in the garbage and they can live in the forest like hunter-gatherers. Which would, of course, condemn most of the human race to poverty and death. So… you are just another bulk-rate anti-human pro-death nutcase. Okay, cool.

  4. Pingback: Trudeau Will Give $2.65B in Climate Change Welfare to Corrupt Foreign Governments | CANADIAN MARKET REVIEW

Leave a reply, question, or criticism

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: