How you can tell a fraudulent Climate science argument.

First rule of telling a fraudulent climate science argument. They use the word denier. There are two things about this phrase. First, it is attempt to compare those who disagree with their view that the world is about to end due to global warming to Nazis. Second, it is scientifically inaccurate.

There are four schools dealing with climate science but there is one important idea, all of the schools of thoughts agree that climate is changing and mostly likely warming. No serious scientists disagree that climate is changing or vast majority view the long term trend is warming.

First school is the alarmist school that global warming is man-made and very bad. The end of the world is near, bla, bla, bla. This is the school the media pays the most attention but the science is totally wrong since much of their predictions have proven to be wrong. For the past three decades, the planet is getting greener, we are feeding more people healthier diets than ever before and every major economic and health metrics have improved. None of this was even predicated because of human ability to adopt and come up with solutions.

Second school believes humans are to blame for present warming but we have plenty of time to deal with the issues. They oppose the use of some fossil fuels but will work with natural gas and are big advocates of nuclear energy. Michael Shellenberger is a example of this school. They don’t buy into replacing our present energy choices with wind and solar since they correctly understand that wind and solar by themselves are incapable of keeping a modern day economy going.

Third school is that human are involved with changing climate but there are natural events that have to be considered. They rely on many solid science to back their concern including the history of this planet. They are not certain that human involvement is that bad. Some within this group view that CO2 levels maybe good for the planet (William Happier is an example of this.) They don’t oppose the use of different mix of energy and like group two, will support a move away from oil and coal toward nuclear energy and natural gas. Think Judith Curry as example of this group.

Fourth school view that much of the climate change is a natural event that has been part of this planet for millions of years and don’t view human contribution as significant. The late Fred Singer is example of this group.

I alternate between the third and fourth school. As I stated in a soon to be published book, that the only way we will get the economic depression, massive starvation and the negative impact of droughts if we actually restrict economic growth to “to save the planet.” Pass the Green New Deal, depend upon wind and solar as oppose to fossil fuels and Nuclear and you will see massive starvation as our economy will go back to a 19th century economy that barely fed one seventh of our present world population.

We have seen a scientific class that has allowed personal agendas and political views to impact the science. Political operatives and activist determine the science not the science helping to determine policies. We saw this in the recent Wuhan virus pandemics.

If a person uses the word denier, he or she is either ill informed or just plain demagogues. The consensus is that the planet climate is changing and we may be in a warmer trend. The real debate is why and what is proper mix of economic policies to ensure our continue economic growth and not set our present economy to a more primitive economy where billions will die.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: