In his recent opinion piece in The Free Press, Ron Yezzi grouped my March article, expressing skepticism about predicting catastrophic effects from the anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change hypothesis, with articles by Charles Krauthammer and Darryl Biehn. I was flattered.
Yezzi’s critique was mostly civil. But I disagree with his claim it was wittingly or unwittingly a source of error and misinformation any more than many letters by alarmist opinion writers, or for that matter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. I think it depends on whose ox is being gored — no pun intended.
Essentially pleased with my placement among those skeptics I was not intending to write on the topic again.
That is until I began hearing and reading the usual absolutely, no-doubt-about-it commentary from main stream media people expressing their opinions of the data in the most recent IPCC study.
Amazing to me how climate alarmists so easily influence/fool some in the gullible main stream media.
The first IPCC report was based on climate model predictions which so far proved wrong with respect to short term global warming i.e. a nearly 18-year-and-continuing plateau of no warming.
Study Group II used essentially the same climate models, probably more as a matter of hope and faith than fact, and reached equally disastrous conclusions.
It recommended extensive action during the next 15 years to mitigate future disaster yet curiously extended the previous deadlines for disaster, which had come and gone, by multiple generations to when none of us, including my five children and 13 grandchildren, will be around to experience any results.
Study Group III offered suggestions to combat their anticipated predicament including limiting meat in our diets, replacing coal and oil as primary sources of energy using (taxpayer-subsidized) so called green alternative sources, along with other policies I think would adversely effect economic growth and national sovereignty. From my layman’s assessment of present established climate science facts i.e. empirical evidence, such actions would be premature at best.