Once upon a time, about 4 years ago, I was a climate believer. I believed the mainstream (IPCC) projections for climate change, and blamed most of it on carbon dioxide.
It seemed reasonable to decarbonize the energy system. I became a bit of a nuclear power advocate. I read books on nukes. I did introductory online courses on nuclear power. I noticed how the energy issue was totally partisan and divided right down the middle.
On one side were pro-nukes, on the other side the 'greens'. The greens were united along several lines. They:
- opposed nuclear power
- supported green issues
- worried about global warming
- were keen to reduce human energy use
For them, the debate was not about saving the planet by stopping carbon dioxide emissions. It was about saving the planet from the scourge of humanity.
The other side: pro-nukes was split. It included eco-modernists, conservatives, nuclear industry people, liberals and lefties.
I could not help notice that the news sources worrying about climate change were doing two things:
- opposing nuclear power
- greatly exaggerating climate change effects, and engaging in a little war against people they called 'deniers'.
Early on, I wanted nothing to do with any of these 'deniers'. They were right wing. They must be wrong. Right?
It slowly dawned on me that the only reasonable people refuting this climate alarmism in the news sources were the 'deniers'. What about all the reasonable people - those who accepted the mainstream IPCC analysis? Where were they in this debate? How come they weren't refuting the obvious over-exaggerations in the media?
The answer is that the 'mainstream' believe the establishment can only be goaded into action by exaggeration. Noble cause corruption. So they stand by and let the hard-core green movement exaggerate. That was my first wake up call. My second wake up call came when I noticed the greens blaming global warming on nuclear power. What kind of good, ethically upright person, has any truck with that kind of politics. Not me. That's the point when my pro-humanism kicked in and I dared to think the unthinkable. What if carbon dioxide was not much at fault for climate change? Then I looked at the evidence. The more evidence I looked at, the longer the term for the evidence: thousands, and even millions of years - the more I too turned into a 'denier' too. I have to call myself a skeptic.
I [used to] think CO2 has some effect on climate. I [used to] think it should warm climate mildly, but only by a quarter to a third what IPCC say. I [used to] expect 0.6C per doubling of CO2. Q: What about the warming which has already happened? I hear you say. Surely that proves CO2 guilty? A: No.
- Because we've seen no real warming for 18 years now. If it's 90% the fault of CO2, there cannot be a hiatus, but there is.
- When you tell me what caused the Medieval Warm Period, then I'll believe there's such a thing as climate science. Till then it's climatology again.
