“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.…
“A reliable worldview, respect for data, and humility in the face of the unknown allow older writings to have longevity and relevance. I believe that the above summary has held up well as the climate debate enters its fourth decade. I predict that fossil fuels will outlive and overcome the current attack just as was done back in the 1970s.”
In 2003, I published a booklet for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, Climate Alarmism Reconsidered. Written 15 years after James Hansen’s climate-scare testimony, and 16 years before Joe Biden’s ‘climate day‘ yesterday, I present the summary bullets of that study.
The ten points follow:
…• The energy sustainability issues of resource depletion, reliability (security) and pollution have been effectively addressed by market entrepreneurship, technology, and, in the absence of private property rights, measured regulation.
The mainstream energy intelligentsia (MEI) has had it wrong for many decades. Today, it is climate change and the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels (really dense mineral energies). A half century ago (1971 would begin the problems with natural gas shortages and Nixon’s price control order that included petroleum), it was the same under a different rationale.
…“Ford called for zero oil imports by 1985. Instead, we imported five million barrels a day then. In 2006, imports will average almost 14 million barrels a day. Had we achieved everything Ford proposed, the price of oil today would be $20 a barrel, not $60, the polar ice caps might not be melting, the polar bear might still have a chance, and our children would have a future.”
– Dr. Phillip Verleger (2007).