Image: Anthony Watts
Allow me to share with you a speech given by one of my sound colleagues here in the European Parliament. Derk Jan Eppink is a Dutch national representing Belgium who sits with us in our Euro-sceptic ECR group. He delivered this speech, entitled “A religion without a God” at a book launch for “Blauwe Planeet” – the newest book by Czech President, and fellow climate realist, Vaclav Klaus. – Roger Helmer MEP
At the occasion of launching Blauwe Planeet
By Derk Jan Eppink
May 25 2011
A religion without a God
Last weekend on May 21, American Christian preacher Harold Camping, once again encountered his ‘Disappointment Day’. For years he announced the end of times, predicting May 21 to be Judgment Day. On that day, the world would be destroyed and only ‘a chosen few’ would make it to heaven.
On Judgment Day, the preacher took a seat in front of his television to await news events. He expected a live report of CNN covering a wave of earthquakes that ultimately would lead to global demise.
But nothing happened.
Instead, CNN focused on the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn who lost his way and senses in a New York hotel room. For ‘DSK’ indeed, the world collapsed. The preacher was disappointed that apocalypses remained confined to only one person and possibly some of his friends in Paris belonging to la gauche caviar. The preacher fled to a motel to escape international media.
Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take ‘facts’ into account. Like doomsday announcer Camping, you simply believe and preach, hoping that facts will follow. Western political elites live in a secularized world, a world without God. But religion – a matter of belief – does apparently remain a need of human mankind. In particular, progressive political elites have abolished God, while clinging to notoriously religious features like ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘final judgement’, ‘redemption’, ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’, as part of their political philosophies.
God is gone, but the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is ‘guilt’ (politically incorrect behaviour of human mankind), ‘fear’ (doomsday), if there is ‘sin’ (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally salvation (brought about by the NGO´s of the Green Movement). And if there is somehow a substitute Jesus on top, as impersonated by Al Gore, secular religion gets rooted in political communities trying to turn it into public policy all people have to adhere to.
It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as a heretic, as anti-human, as narrow-minded, as autistic and stupid. In fact, like in theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness. There was no way to escape.
Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a dissident by inclination. He simply raised factual questions secularized religions can hardly cope with.
That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth. And here again, even as President of an EU member state he challenged the fundamentals of a policy pretending to save the world from Doomsday.
Many politicians publish books. Very often, these books are written by other people. Very often, these books are glossy and self-glorifying. Very often, these books make no impact whatsoever and they are finally shelved in the basement of the party headquarter. Mostly, these books are dead upon arrival in the bookstore.
Klaus takes on nonsensical thinking regardless of the status of the author himself. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament. In fact, it is a church singing the gospel of the ‘ever closer Union’. Some members were shocked, left the Plenary and started crying in the corridor. Yesterday, Ivo Belet one of those weeping members, published an opinion article in a Flemish newspaper denouncing NVA-figurehead Bart De Wever for meeting the Anti-Christ from the Czech Republic. Belet, a slavish poodle of EU figureheads, is barking up the wrong tree. The European elite demand flattery and praise; not to criticism, let alone unconventional thinking.
It takes courage to challenge fashionable thinking. For 5 years, I worked in the cabinet of former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. The Dutch Commissioner was a non federalist and a climate change sceptic in the Commission. For most of his colleagues he was the ‘devil in disguise’. You can imagine the bumpy ride he had in Brussels; he was a ‘non believer’ in a church of devoted federalists.
Once he got a letter from former Belgian Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, a self-appointed viceroy of the United States of Belgium, who said that a non federalist should not be member of the European Commission. He demanded a purge to restore the purity of the Institution.
Ten years ago, Bolkestein publicly said that the Euro would derail if not underpinned by sound monetary policy and iron-clad criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. He also stated that a common EU immigration policy based on unenforced external borders would generate a political backlash beyond belief. He was laughed at. But now, the political elite of the EU is not laughing anymore. They wasted ten years of policy-making and still, they would rather drive into a brick wall than to admit that they made mistakes.
Jean Marie Dedecker equally has the courage to stick out his neck. As a former Judo player and coach he is not risk adverse. On the contrary, he likes the fray and smashing his opponents on the ground, sooner the better.
And that is precisely why he has written the introduction to the Dutch version of the book President Klaus is launching here today. He belonged to the first in Belgium to challenge the preachers of doom and climate change. Belgium only recently abolished God, and for those who were still in doubt some catholic leaders and priests did the rest.
Flanders was in urgent need for a religious substitute that would be able to micromanage the lives of the people. Obviously, Dedecker was vilified by the political elites and the media which had turned into an extension of the green movement and its preachers in politics.
Both Klaus and Dedecker focused on facts, rather than on speculation and emotional manipulation. They challenged the issues head-on by raising difficult questions, and by doing so they gradually saw the narrative of climate change unravel. Later on, a series of scandals revealed that so-called scientific researchers had manipulated their work in order to serve the dogmas of their beliefs. The Copenhagen Summit resulted in failure and, demonstrations against climate change even had to be cancelled because it was to cold and frosty in the Danish capital.
Now, climate change does not have that mythical spot on the political agenda it had a few years ago. However, it remains on the agenda of political elites in the EU. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image. But the man in the street never embraced climate change and why? The climate has been changing as long as there is a climate, even in times in which people were running around naked and living in caves. One slight change in the activity of the Sun has an impact on the entire [solar system]. Human behaviour is just one of the many elements. Therefore, the religious zeal did not stick because ‘human guilt’ could not be established. And ‘guilt’ is what it takes to make a religion work, even a religion without a God.
Therefore, a democracy needs people like Klaus and Dedecker, people who speak out when nobody does, people who stand out when others follow the flow and people who lash out when many bend towards submission. This book will certainly be a much welcome recipe against political overheating in Flanders and the reality-check which is the necessary basis for any sound public policy.
@Smokey
Prof. Lindzen misinterprets Tsonis et al. This is what they actually say:
In 2007: “However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf
And in 2009: “Global mean temperature at the Earth’s surface responds both to externally imposed forcings, such as those arising from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, as well as to natural modes of variability internal to the climate system. Variability associated with these latter processes, generally referred to as natural long-term climate variability, arises primarily from changes in oceanic circulation.
Here we present a technique that objectively identifies the component of inter-decadal global mean surface temperature attributable to natural long-term climate variability. Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal,
which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century.“
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
John
John B,
When you quote someone explaining that they “superimposed” something on top of the raw data, they are describing a model, not evidence. But thanx for showing us again what grant-trolling looks like: removal of a ‘hidden variable’, heh. If those clowns could make accurate predictions with their models, don’t you think they would have done it by now?
They claim that warming is accelerating, while empirical satellite and radiosonde measurements contradict them.
Your problem is that you reject empirical evidence, and believe the models instead.
Stephen Wilde said, “Have I blown AGW out of the water ?”
I don’t know. What do you think? My response to you crossed in moderation.
John
Hey Smokey, those “clowns” are the very people Prof. Lindzen was using to support the assertion you cited. I have no idea whether their work is any good or not, I was just pointing out that Prof. Lindeen misinterpreted them. The first of my quotes is from the actual paper he cited.
@Smokey
And linking to a graph that covers 7 years and another one that covers just over a year wouldn’t be cherry picking, would it?
To misquote Slick Wille, “It’s the trend, stupid” (and no, I am not calling you stupid)
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/co2_temp_trend.png
Well John, I do think AGW is in difficulty if the stratosphere is no longer cooling.
The thing is that I think that the ozone recovery is ozone induced just as the ozone loss was solar induced so the part that CO2 plays in the process is likely negligible unless you and your fellow AGW proponents can come up with far better evidence.
Which gives me an opportunity to post this:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php
I think that Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann made a huge error back in 2001 on the basis of a mere assumption.
John B:
You again lie.
I cannot post the diagram here so I am forced to yet again post the link:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
At May 30, 2011 at 8:39 am you lie:
“And to the extent they show any warming at all, the pattern is the same as regards the hot spot. Look at figure (a) solar and (d) ozone forcings. What little effect they have is also centred on the upper troposphere.”
NO! The pattern is NOT the same.
Anybody can see your lie for themselves so why do you keep posting it except as a way to prevent rational discussion?
(a) solar forcing,
shows similar warming at altitude to the surface.
(b) volcanoes
does show slightly higher warming at altitude than at the surface but their overall effect is cooling and is transient (i.e. lasts ~3 years for each major eruption).
(c) well-mixed greenhouse gases
shows much greater warming (i.e 2 to 3 times more) at altitude than at the surface and this provides the big red hot spot.
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes
shows the same warming at altitude and the surface.
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing
the relevant altitude shows cooling – not warming – relative to the surface.
That is fact which anybody can see. So, you may be deluding yourself with your lies but they fool nobody else.
Richard
@Steven
Obviously I haven’t had as long on this topic as you have, since you wrote the article you link to 🙂
I wouldn’t call that an error on the part of Schmidt and Mann. They suggest that MWP and LIA were caused by solar irradiance changes. They don’t “junk” this mechanism for the late 20th century, they just say it is swamped by the effect of CO2. I’d have to agree with you that the ozone effect is at least a confounding factor.
Are you planning to publish your work formally? If you think you have a novel point, I think that is what you should do.
Stephen Wilde:
With respect, I think you are on a loser.
John B said;
“If the stratosphere were found to be warming rather than cooling, that would blow AGW out of the water.”
And you showed that the empirical data shows the stratosphere IS warming.
Any rational person would thank you for that information and would learn from it. An AGW cultist will make excuses and conclude with an assertion that the empirical data must be wrong.
Richard
Actually there is a religion underlying much environmental activism – Pantheism. It considers god and the world to be the same, and every creature is literally part of the world. So in the extreme every action hurts, there are no individuals, thus it is attractive to the many people who’ve been taught the notions of Marxism and its Kantian cousins.
Pantheism is probably practised implicitly rather than consciously by name. Some religious practices of aboriginals were close to Pantheism, seemingly because they recognized their dependence on the world around them but did not understand the causes of variability of climate and risks of action. (They were mixed, they did recognize human performance such as great hunting skills, and invented or adopted inventions from other tribes/cultures. Such as designing boats to suit locally available materials and the need for light weight or durability depending on local geography, and controlled use of fire to increase supply of animals and plants.)
I find that environmental activists are operating on faith. They talk as though it is obvious that humans are ruining the environment but ignore human-supporting achievements like clean water. They talk of deforestation yet cannot grasp the view outside their window of abundant gardens nor the view of replanted forests outside cities, such as http://www.keithsketchley.com/treegrow.gif. When challenged with such evidence they keep repeating their beliefs.
What I find puzzling is that the media paid much attention to Harold Camping. Doomsday predictions by Christians in the US are a regular occurrence.
Thanks Richard, I’m inclined to agree.
John B,
I’ve no intention of formal publication. The peer review of the blogosphere is more rigorous than pal’s review.
The natural conclusion from events of the past ten years is that any effect from CO2 is swamped by natural variability.
Gavin and Michael backed the wrong horse and it would be good for climate science as a whole if they were to accept that and explain how it happened.
Richard, take another look:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
See that fat yellow stripe across the middle of (a). Wouldn’t you say that is at the same altitude as the read spot in (c)? And the little yellow dot in (d). Also at the same altitude as the red spot. They are yellow rather than red because the effect is much smaller, but “lapse rate” works the same no matter what the cause of the warming. (e) is cooling so its difficult to compare. Actually (b) is the outlier since its “warm spot” is at higher altitude.
And how dare you call me a liar? You may not like what I have to say, but I am not lying. As far as my so-called “lies” fooling anyone, you know as well as I do that I am presenting the mainstream position. If anyone else here is not aware of that, look it up. I guess you would just say there are a lot of liars out there.
Stephen makes some sense. If the stratosphere warming effect is (a) real and (b) long lived and (c) not separable from CO2 induced cooling, it is indeed a problem to AGW. However, you Richard seem to need a crash course in the scientific method. A single paper does not “prove” or “disprove” anything, it only supplies evidence. If that evidence is valid, replicable, etc., it trumps theory. That’s why I asked him if he was going to publish his work. It would add to the body of evidence. That’s how science works. If the weight of evidence shows that stratospheric cooling, as predicted by AGW, is not happening, I will gladly accept that AGW is blown out of the water. There, happy now?
John
Stephen said: “The natural conclusion from events of the past ten years is that any effect from CO2 is swamped by natural variability.”
Yes, the effect of CO2 is swamped, or at least obscured, by natural variability. But the effect of CO2 has a trend, natural variability does not, at least not over the same timescales. The effect of waves lapping in and out on the shore swamps the effect of the tide coming in, but the tide still comes in. It just takes a few hours to see it. 10 years is at the low end of what is needed to see the effects of CO2, which is why climatalogists tend to use 30 year norms.
John B,
Yes I am cautious but first to the line gets the prize and to me the logic and observations are currently all going one way.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/features/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
The thing is that if I hadn’t noted the jets start to shift back equatorward as long ago as 2000 I would never have doubted AGW theory but that really was not supposed to happen and there were lots of other changes around the same time that did not fit AGW theory either such as:
The less active sun being accompanied by a record negative AO.
The stratosphere no longer cooling.
Tropospheric temperature stopped rising.
Global albedo and cloudiness started increasing.
The jets ceased to shift poleward.
Ocean heat content stopped rising.
One really should follow the evidence after all.
Always question the mainstream if you see odd things happening 🙂
John,
Your point about the bacxkground effect of more CO2 is valid but must be put in perspective.
The jets shifted by 1000 miles or so from MWP to LIA to date and I’d guess that human CO2 contributes just a mile or so unless you can prove otherwise.
Even on the basis that more CO2 does have a discernible effect we have hundreds of years to wean off fossl fuels, control our populations and adapt our technologies.
Stephen,
An interesting article, which I will read properly when I get time. You have clearly put a lot of work into it. I genuinely think you should look at getting it published. First though, you need to get your work informally reviewed by some experts in the field. They might be able to point out flaws, but alternatively might be able to suggest improvements or other avenues to investigate. Seriously, if there is real merit in your work it will get somewhere. It really isn’t the closed shop that some suggest. But I would go “mainstream” if you want to avoid becoming just another skeptics talking point.
One bit of advice, that maybe is teaching granny to suck eggs: while we can (kind of) get away with phrases like “seems unlikely” or “natural consequence” when shooting the breeze on the web, in a serious paper you have to qualify everything. I just wrote a Masters’ dissertation (in bioinformatics). That’s not even a real paper, but I can tell you, reviewers will be brutal if you make unfounded or unsupported claims.
Good luck!
John
Thanks John but if the real world behaves as I suggest then the blog posts will be quite enough.
Besides I have a demanding day job and could not allocate the time to prepare a full dissertation.
Also it is a work in progress that I adjust continually in the light of new data.
John B:
Reality is what it is.
Reality is not what you, me or anybody else may want it to be.
And lies are lies whether or not you present them in polite words.
The facts of the ‘hot spot’ are clear so everybody can see the truth for themselves. Hence, I see no point in my wasting more time refuting your nonsense about it.
I still await your answer to the question;
“What happened to the “committed warming”?”
Richard
John B says:
“…linking to a graph that covers 7 years and another one that covers just over a year wouldn’t be cherry picking, would it? To misquote Slick Wille, ‘It’s the trend, stupid’”
No, it would not be cherry-picking. I deliberately posted two charts, covering different time scales, to avoid charges of cherry-picking. But to keep you happy, here are three more charts, showing that CO2 follows temperature:
click1 [CO2 lags T by 5 months]
click2 [30-year chart]
click3 [60-year chart]
Effect cannot precede cause, therefore the rise in CO2 follows the MWP by ≈800 ±200 years. Part of the atmospheric CO2 is human emitted. But as I will conclusively demonstrate, that added CO2 is entirely beneficial.
Next, that chart you linked @10:42 am above was pretty scary — and it completely misrepresents the situation by using an alarming y-axis. Here is a chart using a normal zero y-axis: click See? No longer scary.
Let’s look at Dr Roy Spencer’s chart of CO2 in its correct relationship to the atmosphere: click See the CO2? No? OK, Here’s that same chart magnified 10X: click But a chart like that is entirely unacceptable to the IPCC and its alarmist enablers, so they use charts like you posted, with the y-axis beginning at close to current levels. See, that makes the rise seem very alarming.
OK, let’s try again, by magnifying the chart by another 10X: click Now you can make out the tiny amount of CO2.
Here’s another chart: click See the CO2? No? That’s because it’s too minuscule to see.
Despite all the spittle-flecked, red faced arm-waving by the self-serving alarmist contingent, normal folks can see how the effect of “carbon” has been completely blown out of proportion. An honest y-axis puts things in their proper perspective.
Next, CO2 is good, not bad — and more CO2 is better:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
That is empirical [real world] evidence that additional CO2 is highly beneficial to the biosphere. But even after a significant ≈40% increase in that trace gas, there is zero evidence of any resulting global damage. Since there is no harm, CO2 must be considered harmless, no? [if you have the urge to answer ‘yes,’ you must post verifiable evidence of global damage tied directly to CO2, and testable per the scientific method].
I trust you were able to follow the logic here: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Until/unless empirical evidence is provided showing that CO2 is not harmless or beneficial, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] must follow the scientific method, and conclude that without testable evidence, forcings other than carbon dioxide cause climate change.
Smokey, are you serious? Nah, you gotta be kidding me!
Let’s take this graph:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
Do you really not see how stupid that is? You are trying to argue that becuase CO2 is a trace gas, which everyone agrees on, that it can’t be significant. And using a graph to show it is a trace gas, which everyone agrees on, does not help the argument one bit. How about I introduce a similar trace of hydrogen cyanide into you local atmosphere? Of course a trace can be significant. In the case of atmospheric CO2 the evidence is that it is. That does need to be demonstrated, but to say “it can’t be a problem because its only a teeny bit” is just stupid. I think you even said yourself earlier in this thread that it “may” have an effect.
You make a different but equally egregious mistake with your “it’s beneficial ” argument. It is possible for a substance to be beneficial in one way but harmful in another. Take water for instance – essential for life, but if you were to spend 5 minutes at the bottom of a swimming pool, not so good. Let’s agree that increased atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow. What has that got to do with it’s potential effects as a greenhouse gas? Nothing! It can be “plant food” and a greenhouse gas.
The x- and y-axes on the graph I posted were set to contain all the data, so that you can see clearly what’s going on – not to scare anyone. Sorry if they scard you, that was not the intention. The intention was to show the trend. that just happened to be the first suitable graph I found that I could link to.
Which highlights your next mistake: absolutely any graph can be turned into a flat line by extending the y-axis enough. What does it prove? Nothing! If you want to see if something is increasing, decreasing, staying flat, wiggling about, or following something else, you set the y-axis to allow you to see what’s going on. OK, there is some rationale in setting the y-axis to start at 0, but why did you take it to 1,000? Why not 10,000? Why not 100, 000? That would make the trend look even less “scary”, to someone who doesn’t see what you are doing.
And then your last paragraph: “I trust you were able to follow the logic here: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Until/unless empirical evidence is provided showing that CO2 is not harmless or beneficial, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] must follow the scientific method, and conclude that without testable evidence, forcings other than carbon dioxide cause climate change.
What does CO2 being “beneficial” have to do with whether it causes climate change? Nothing! It could be both, you know. And surely your scientific method should only lead you to conclude that “forcings other than carbon dioxide may cause climate change”.
Look, there are uncertainties about climate sensitivity, there are uncertainties about statospheric cooling (I learned today), there are all sorts of things open to debate, but this is just silly.
John
John B says:
“OK, there is some rationale in setting the y-axis to start at 0, but why did you take it to 1,000?”
From zero to 1,000 ppmv shows exactly where we are. And you’ve got a problem with that? Why? I’ve provided you with plenty of supporting graphs – and I have plenty more. If you’re interested in learning, just ask for them. The real problem is using an artificially high y-axis.
Anyway, there is still nothing in your posts showing evidence that CO2 is anything but harmless and beneficial. There has been no global damage, and as I showed, agricultural production tracks increases in CO2. Thus, CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas.
Your problem is that you want to blame CO2 for climate change, but you have no evidence.
Richard, I did answer you on committed warming. I said:
“Regarding the committed warming, I didn’t realise that question was directed at me. It is, after all, a different issue. But surely you are clutching at straws going after a prediction that has other 9 years to go. Let’s say it turns out to be wrong. Does this disprove all of AGW theory? No, because climate is a noisy business. You have to look at the trends. Eventually there might come a time when the trends go in the wrong direction. If and when that happens, non-AGW will become the mainstream, but we’re not there yet.”
On the hot spot though, let’s throw it open to the audience, but let’s make it objective. On each of the figures that show warming, at what altitude is the greatest warming at the equator? In other words, where is its hot spot? I say the equator because it is the tropical tropospheric hot spot we are talking about. The figure that show warming are (a), (b), (c) and (d). The greatest warming is red in (c), yellow in (a), (b) and (d) as they produce less warmimg, but it is the pattern not the magnitude we are looking at. The equator is the middle of the x=axis.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Anyone care to answer? Richard, you can join in too? I’ll hold off so as not to bias the result. Here’s a clue though: three answers, including GHG (c), will be very similar.
Smokey, my feeble attemts at irony were clearly lost on you. I should have simply said, “why go to 1000 when 500 or even 400 would show all the data and allow you to see what is happening more clearly?” 1000 is the “artificially high y=axis”.
And then you atart talking about “global damage”. That’s important too, but I thought we were talking about y-axes. One thing at a time.
Why don’t you have a go at my hot spot quiz?
I’ve pointed out the attempts to alarm the public with jiggered y-axes. That point has been made. The central issue is the hypothesis that CO2=CAGW. CO2 has risen, but there is no evidence of ill effects – and plenty of evidence of beneficial effects.
Regarding the failure of the predicted warming of the troposphere, Prof Ross McKittrick definitively showed in his peer reviewed paper that the tropospheric hot spot had not appeared as predicted. Another dagger in the heart of CAGW.
The widely touted “fingerprint of global warming” just isn’t there.
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. There is no evidence to the contrary. The planet is still emerging from the LIA, so CO2 is still outgassing from the oceans. But the model predictions are, as always, wrong.
Some day the scales may fall from your eyes, and you will realize that the motivation to demonize “carbon” is based on money, greed, power and status, not on reproducible science:
Would that be the same Lindzen who (mis)quoted Tsonis et al to support him? The same Tsonis et al who you called “clowns” because you didn’t spot why I quoted them.
And one day you may realise that not all climate scientists are evil or dishonest and that not every one who accepts what the experts have to say is stupid. And that reality trumping ideology works both ways. And that dismissing all the science you don’t like while uncritically accepting anything you do like is not really being a “skeptic”. One day…
This has been very informative, thank you!