“Whispered discreetly at conferences or in meeting rooms, these claims [against mainstream climate science] might be accepted as part of the frequently contentious process of a still evolving area of science. Stated publicly on some of the same Web sites that broke the so-called Climategate e-mails last fall, they are considered by many to be a betrayal, earning Curry epithets from her colleagues ranging from ‘naive’ to ‘bizarre’ to ‘nasty’ to worse.”

– “Climate heretic: Judith Curry Turns on her Colleagues,” Scientific American (reprinted in Nature), 2010.

The Climategate saga in 2009 (see here and here) opened the door to uncertainty and dissent regarding the ‘settled science’ view of carbon dioxide (CO2) and climate alarmism. The next year, Scientific American (October 25, 2010) published a piece by Michael Lemonick, then senior science writer at Climate Central, on respected scientist Judith Curry on the agenda-driven turn of climate science.…

“Is the human environment better because of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the usage of carbon-based energies? The answer is a resounding yes. That is triumphant news, whether the human influence on climate is net ‘bad’ or net ‘good’ by a physical, stasis metric.”

Statistics and history matter. Particularly when a shared narrative is contradicted by the interaction of man and nature.

A recent Facebook post by Bjørn Lomborg cannot be emphasized enough in this regard. Over the last century, climate-related deaths have plummeted as societal wealth has overcome the limits to nature. I am reminded of an Alex Epstein quotation, mirroring a major theme of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:

Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe.

“[Facebook is] a powerful way to misinform people, since these groups can’t win in the actual scientific arena, so they only can win in these media environments where they can pay to promote stuff.” (Andrew Dessler, 2020).

“All of the noise right now from the climate change denial machine, the bots & trolls, the calls for fake ‘debates’, etc. Ignore it all….Report, block. Don’t engage.” (Michael Mann, 2019)

Andrew Dessler and Michael Mann are two very emotional climate alarmists in today’s vigorous, unsettled debate. “Hide the Decline” Mann, the leading culprit of the Climategate scandal, triggered “a public-relations disaster for science” by manipulating data and techniques to reach a preordained (alarmist) result. Andy Dessler, who admits to a “very low threshold for outrage,” is the alarmist’s alarmist–a true catastrophist.…

Will green investment be prioritised in the economic stimulus packages that are undoubtedly needed? Will people think differently about travel or food security? Will we emerge with a politics that focuses more on a collective approach to global challenges such as climate? Or will we fall back into desperate attempts to rekindle the old economy and the old ways? – Rebecca Willis (UK), The Guardian, May 21, 2020

The shallowness of climate concern among the public and voters is a large elephant in the climate room. A recent poll by the American Energy Alliance confirmed that U.S. voters are much more interested in pocketbook issues than in the ephemeral, politicized issue of “climate change.” The same is true when it comes to politics as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) lamented earlier this year:

There is no company that shows up in Congress on climate, except maybe Patagonia.