Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Forbes has published an apology by high profile environmental activist Michael Shellenberger for his role in helping to create the climate scare, and his explanation for why he chose to speak out now.
24 views|Jun 28, 2020,06:48pm EDT
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
Michael Shellenberger
I write about energy and the environment.On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
…
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
…
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
…
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
…
Read more:https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/06/28/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/(Backup PDF Available Here)
Michael Schellenberger has provided a more complete explanation in his new book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Reading Schellenberger’s full apology in Forbes, I was pleasantly surprised how close his views are to mine. Despite Schellenberger’s highly commendable views on nuclear power, I assumed he was still an alarmist when it came to his views on anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I was wrong.
I am sorry I made an incorrect assumption about your views on climate change Michael.
Update (EW): The original Forbes link seems to have died. A backup copy is available here.
UPDATE2: Forbes has pulled his article, see Tweet below. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now let’s see if he unblocks me on twitter for criticizing his climate BS.
At one stage we were following each other. Now it looks like he closed his twitter account and deleted all his tweets. His facebook posts are still there.
Apologies. His twitter account is still there: They just tweaked their search engine to disappear him.
Mark Pawelek – 6:42 am …His twitter account is still there:
They just tweaked their search engine to disappear him.
“They” being those wonderfully egalitarian folks who run Twitter right?
What gets me is all of the companies that are abandoning Twitter and other social media sites because they aren’t doing enough to censor anyone who disagrees with the socialist mobs.
“…because they aren’t doing enough to censor anyone who disagrees with the socialist mobs.”
I disagree. I believe the companies are pulling their advertising because they fear, justifiably, that the Left, in league with a complicit media, is fully capable of damaging their sales revenues via an organized boycott.
I also think that’s a good thing. The less ad revenue the censorious receive, the better, and I have a suggestion to accelerate the trend. Organize boycotts from the Right as well. When a company advertises on Twitter right after Twitter bans a conservative, get the hashtag #boycott(companyname) going and generate a few thousand angry anti-censorship emails, tweets, posts, calls, etc., to that company’s CEO.
Eventually, perhaps rather quickly even, most CEO’s will decide to switch their advertising dollars to forums where, no matter what they do, they aren’t threatened with loss of sales from both sides of the political spectrum, with one side demanding censorship and the other demanding it stop.
The falloff in revenues at the offending media sources could be significant. If so, problem potentially solved.
They created the beast, and as predicted, the beast has turned on it’s creators. The left is never satisfied. Look at all the purges in socialist countries.
The beast is never satisfied – the left’s fascist methods require a new target once the current target is destroyed.
That’s why appeasing them never works – if they literally got everything single thing they wanted, they’ll have a new hate-target tomorrow.
Anyone that wishes to stand in their way, has to accept this.
We can all hope the left cancels itself soon enough.
They were outside Bezos’ DC house today with a guillotine.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so alarming.
In the end, Robespierre did end up going to the guillotine, himself.
@Rod June 29, 2020 at 9:12 am
#boycotttwitter #boycottfacebook
Of course they did, @Jack is a true believer and he will memory hole Schellenberger soon enough.
It’s Shellenberger. There is no “c” in his name.
David Yaussy,
Funny that. There is another alarmist with the word Hell in his name. It is ScHELLinhuber a German who wrote pope Francis Communistic manifesto Laudato Sie.
It must be a German thing.
David Yaussy,
Strange that – there is another Germanic gentleman called ScHELLinuber who wrote Pope Francis’ global warming catechism Laudato Sie.
It is interesting that this gentleman has HELL in his name. Is this just a German thing or pure coincidence?
to Patrick Healy
Got it wrong twice, the german science clown’s name is Schellnhuber, without the i and with the h.
The alarmist religion will be positively apoplectic over this, they will do all they can to stop this being circulated; there will be social media deletions and name calling for not adhering to the climate mantra policy.
I think his next epiphany will be to discover the true hate that drives the progressive left – any high-profile skeptics care to speculate what sort of attention he might be getting in the next few days and weeks.
I’m guessing he’s going to find what the people he thought were the ‘love crowd’ – who he probably thought were his friends – are really about.
No one believes it until it happens to them.
Yes – former Green extremist Michael Shellenberger and radical film-maker Michael Moore can share a bunker, and hire a food-taster… …mustn’t tell the truth!
When Forbes censors an honest article, you know green-extremist “special attention” is sure to follow.
Suggested reading:
Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1932)
George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (1949).
Both novels were written as warnings of a dystopian, totalitarian future, but Biden and Trudeau think they are instruction manuals.
So he’s doing a 180 by writing and selling a book. Climate alarmist and climate opportunist? Or maybe he’s donating book profits to the people he’s harmed with his alarmist pronouncements. Maybe Forbes was right to pull his apology. Though doing so probably brings him more attention than otherwise.
I posted the original link to this article earlier today and it was just removed by Forbes. Is this just more silencing of the inconvenient facts??? Read now, while you can at the GWPF site.
https://www.thegwpf.com/michael-shellenberger-on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/
Forbes undoubtedly received unhappy feedback on the article from advertisers and subscribers…..after all, they published much CC exaggeration drivel over the years to increase readership and advertising. It is a wonder Shellenberger’s article made it past the editor.
He should get together with Patrick Moore on the guest lecturer circuit. One might suspect that was the plan, except CoVid19 has shut down even Obama’s lucrative gigs.
But isn’t the apology really an advertisement for his new book? Maybe Forbes didn’t want to provide free advertising.
This says it all. The UN/Davos Consensus Gang has moved quickly. The word will have already gone out to the now compliant media to suppress publication and debate.
Of course they will, but there are now some fairly big rats fleeing the s(t)inking ship. Pass the popcorn, more to come I hope.
Here is the Forbes article, via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200629001029/https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/06/28/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/#16d934535dc3
I just posted this note minutes ago on another thread, before reading Michael Schellenberger’s “apology”:
wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/27/accusation-implodes-in-mn-global-warming-lawsuit/#comment-3024944
[excerpt]
I knew that CAGW was a failed hypothesis circa 1985, and we published that conclusion in 2002 (below).
Soon thereafter it became clear that CAGW was a deliberate scientific and political fraud.
This post is from 2002 and 2013:
…
I strongly oppose CAGW alarmism and green energy fraud because it is irrational, immoral and destructive to humanity AND the environment.
…
We wrote this in 2002 and have been proven correct to date:
DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD
Published by APEGA in the PEGG, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse.
by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002
friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
On global warming:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
On green energy:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
______________________
Michael, your apology is NOT accepted. Here, in part, is why:
HYPOTHESIS: RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/
[excerpt]
“In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more.
Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!”
– February 1, 2019
“…radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice…” – March 10, 2019
…
2. My hypothesis is that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.
Here is some of the supporting evidence:
The banning of DDT from ~1972 to 2002, which caused the malaria deaths of tens of millions of children under five years of age, and sickened and killed many more adults and children;
iea.org.uk/publications/research/malaria-and-the-ddt-story
The fierce green opposition to golden rice, actions that blinded and killed millions of children;
The misallocation of scarce global resources for destructive intermittent “green energy” schemes, which are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy;
Properly allocated, a fraction of the trillions of dollars squandered on green energy schemes could have installed clean drinking water and sanitation systems into every community on the planet, saving the lives of many tens of millions of children and adults; the remaining funds could have significantly reduced deaths from malaria and malnutrition;
The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban; Excess Winter Deaths (more deaths in winter than non-winter months) total about two million souls per year, which demonstrates that Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity;
Indoor air pollution from cooking fires kills many women and children in the developing world;
In addition to runaway energy costs and increased winter deaths, intermittent wind and solar power schemes have reduced grid reliability and increased the risk of power outages;
Huge areas of agricultural land have been diverted from growing food to biofuels production, driving up food costs and causing hunger among the world’s poorest people.
3. There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is a false crisis.
______________
So no Michael, your apology is not accepted, you and your friends are not forgiven for these crimes against humanity.
– Allan MacRae
Seconded!
Allan, while I agree with pretty much everything you say, this statement is not correct:
“Huge areas of agricultural land have been diverted from growing food to biofuels production, driving up food costs and causing hunger among the world’s poorest people.”
The bioethanol industry takes the ~30% of the corn that is food and converts it to better food by making dry distillers grain and feeding it to chickens and cows to make excellent BBQ material.
The other ~70% is corn starch, which is the waste product and supports the good 30% by being sold as bioethanol. Obviously there are political considerations, and I could go on. Happy to discuss it further with you.
Hi Phil,
As “Rescue CEO” of a small energy company I inherited a corn ethanol plant in Wyoming. I am familiar with the process – the distiller’s grain is the byproduct of ethanol production and is excellent high-protein animal feed.
That does not make the corn ethanol process economic or environmental – we had good local management and huge state and federal subsidies and still the plant only broke-even. In some years corn prices were so high that poor Mexicans went hungry. The excess water use in the Midwest is increasing the decline of the Ogallala Aquifer at an alarming rate.
The clear-cutting of the rainforests for palm oil and sugar-cane ethanol is even more environmentally destructive.
Biofuels are an environmental and economic debacle.
Regards, Allan
There have been times when the DDGs sold for more than the corn.
The industry has always teetered between profitability and non-profitabilty. I’m not defending it. I don’t work in it, but I know a lot about it for other reasons.
The newer plants use barely any “new”water. It’s 90% recycled and what is lost is from the cooling towers. The rest is indeed sourced from the aquifer.
We may be somewhat aligned on what we know about this industry, but it’s probably the main source of carbon sequestration in the US (given the magnitude of 10 -15% ethanol in the 140 billion gallons/pa of gasoline used here). Ironic really, given that we’re using a lot of the excrement of Chinese industry !!!
Ho again Phil
The excess water use is from irrigation to grow the corn, not water use at the plant.
All of the calories that are going into alcohol used to go into either animals or people.
The fact that some of the waste product can be used for animal feed doesn’t change this.
You have that the wrong way round Mark. The waste product is the starch which is not good for the animal’s GI tracts. The 30% of proteins, fiber, lipids etc. is what they want and can digest. As I said, the waste product is the starch which is converted to ethanol to support the production of better farm animal food.
For example:
https://www.mnbiofuels.org/media-mba/blog/item/1378-ddgs-101-the-basics
They have been using corn feed to fatten up cattle just before market for generations.
Allen
You say so many things that are right but drop this claim:
“Indoor air pollution from cooking fires kills many women and children in the developing world”
It is not that people don’t suffer from breathing smoke, it is that the industry that has grown up around this trivial fact has taken on monstrous proportions. One of the experts I work with asked someone from the WHO why they were lying about the number of ‘deaths’ claimed for smoke inhalation (not if they were lying) and was told in reply, “If we don’t, we can’t raise money.”
You have to admire honesty where you can find it.
The “cooking fires kill millions per year” meme is not based on “facts” as we understand them. The numbers are entirely fabricated. If Tony Heller tried to show a plot of actual deaths caused by cooking fire smoke inhalation to compare with the modeled ones, the chart would be blank. There is no data, only bad models.
Their great messiah, Kirk Smith from Berkeley, passed away last weekend. Will the meme be deep-sixed as well? He was the Jim Hansen of stove smoke, cooking up deaths from finely chopped assumptions. The propaganda is so well promoted that even the great Allen MacRae has been induced to repeat it. Take it from someone on the inside: it is a scam as sensible as the “equitoxicity” of all particles floating in the air.
In that regard, now that the perfectly ordinary Saharan dust cloud nicknamed “Godzilla” has covered the whole of the Caribbean and USA, you can take it (from the EPA’s and IHME’s methodologies) that “a million Americans” are going to die if they go outside and inhale. Kirk had it that even indoors you are doomed. After all, that cloud is composed of particles and they are said by the “experts” to be as toxic as cigarette smoke.
My prediction is that within a century more than 300m Americans will die.
There is no need to lie to take action against air pollution – my generation has been taking action for 50 years. Is the current generation so useless that they have to be lied to in order to get them off the Play Station?
Thank you Crispin. Javier made a similar comment last year. I responded:
2. If I were rewriting this treatise, I would state that “Indoor air pollution from cooking fires contributes to illness and premature death in the developing world, especially among women and children;”
Would that suffice?
Unfortunately, I have not rewritten this paper so am quoting it as written.
Best, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/#comment-2680938
Thank you Javier for your comments.
1. In 2015, Joe d’Aleo and I were about to publish our paper on Excess Winter Deaths when Gasparrini et al published their landmark study in The Lancet. We pulled our article and rewrote it to include Gasparrini – our paper is cited above. The 2 million Excess Winter Deaths per year globally is my rough estimate – I agree it is probably low.
2. If I were rewriting this treatise, I would state that “Indoor air pollution from cooking fires contributes to illness and premature death in the developing world, especially among women and children;”
It was challenging to limit this treatise to seven pages – every one of these very serious topics would be well-served with more detailed discussion.
Best, Allan
Your re-wording is much better. There are no data supporting the sentence (yet). It is all “attribution”. The claim that indoor air quality affects “women and children” mostly is an assumption. When checking personal exposure of men and women in rural Kyrgyzstan 2 years ago, the Dutch International Primary Care Respiratory Group found men had higher exposure than women, much against expectations.
The contribution to illness is attributed, the contribution to a premature death is attributed, the confounding factors are ignored, and no one really knows what is happening. I could suggest additional wording but it will start to sound arcane.
“Indoor air pollution from cooking fires is assumed to contribute to illness and premature death in the developing world, probably more so among women and children because they spend more time cooking. Indoor air pollution has many contributing factors including poor ventilation, smoking and poor ambient air quality.”
“Air pollution” is an undefined term with hazy metrics and unknown chemistry. Further, attributable does not mean avoidable. I could attribute your premature death (defined as before the age of 86) to you owning a Ford. Swapping it for a Chev will not make you live longer because my attribution had no reality.
I agree that there is no good data on deaths related to indoor cooking fires using dung and other materials in the developing world, probably because no one cares enough to do the studies. But it is easy to imagine harm when you see pictures and videos taken inside these habitations, can be hard to see for all the particulate in the air.
Maybe we should make stuff up, like they did here in Alberta recently to justify converting the coal thermal plants to gas, citing “studies” that show health costs in the billions for us even though you’d be hard pressed to measure any coal based particulates in the air anywhere near population centers.
That was pure moonshine compared to the daily grind of cooking meals in the the developing world.
Maybe that is the appropriate place for “skeptical” money to flow for studies, to imperically show the harm of energy poverty?
You are correct Pat.
One typical forest fire does much greater harm to our air quality in Alberta than the total air pollution from one YEAR of our coal-fired power plant emissions – but why let the facts get in the way of another good electric power scam.
://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/california-dreamin-renewables/#comment-1739775
In Alberta, the electric power consumer is often misled by our governments – of both conservative and socialist stripes – and cheated by our utilities.
The Alberta conservative government just installed a multi-billion dollar DC line that is supposed to reduce line losses – but the AC-to-DC-to-AC conversion is about 5%, greater than the total line losses in our province, which average less than 3% – so a simple analysis concludes the DC line is uneconomic.
Alberta also re-routed power from existing power lines to fill up the DC line – otherwise it would only run at less than 10% capacity. Now this DC line is part of our rate base, and consumers will pay for many decades for this scam.
The next scam, this time from our new socialist politicians, is to retire our coal-fired plants that produce electric power for about 2 cents per KWh, and replace them with unreliable, un-dispatchable intermittent wind power – there is NO chance that this plan will work. Our current politicians claim the coal plants are dirty, but there is NO evidence to support that allegation – the air quality downwind is excellent. Our coal is low-sulphur and particulate emissions are cleaned up at the plant source.
We have frequent forest fires upwind of our populated areas, with smoke from Alberta, British Columbia and the NW states of the USA. One typical forest fire does much greater harm to our air quality in Alberta than the total air pollution from one YEAR of our coal-fired power plant emissions – but why let the facts get in the way of another good electric power scam.
The alleged “CO2 pollution” from our coal plants is demonized by the leftists, but beloved of carbon-based life all over our blue-water planet. Numerous studies conclude that 97% of all plants that live downwind of our coal-fired power plants are extremely happy, and support the continued operation of these coal plants into the indefinite future. 🙂
Regards to all, Allan
Totally agree.
Michael Schellenberger’s “apology” reminds me of this story:
Karl Marx is looking up at the world from Hell; he contacts a spiritualist and says:
“I want to tell the world that I apologize for Marxism, and for all the enormous suffering of billions of people all over the world due to the excesses of Marxist governments – the deaths of hundreds of millions and the extreme suffering of billions more.
In my defense, I was hanging out with some cool dudes and they liked my bullsh!t, so I just kind of got carried away and write it down, and then I got famous, and then I couldn’t really recant, because I would look like a total dick, and I would be embarrassed. Anyway, I apologize. My bad.
Except, Marx etc never recanted and apologised. Perhaps if they did, at an earlier time, much death and destruction may have been prevented.
You can never wind back time and undo the harm, but if someone has their road to Damascus moment, what should they do? If his example opens the door for others who are oppressed by the dogma of the politically corrupt Climate scam, it might be more akin to a liberation. Ok, I’ll not hold my breath, but it’s a start.
Eamon.
I agree Eamon, there are those, such as Allan and others who have had the courage to speak up against ‘pseudo’ science time and again. It is difficult for them to easily accept an apology from the very people who reinforced the lies for all those years. Yet they must, they need to accept the apology and embrace their courage too.
It isn’t easy to admit you were wrong, especially at this level when you’ve had so much influence. We need to allow a ‘safe space’ for these people, or they will never admit they were wrong. We need the truth to be broadcast as much as possible, I for one am overjoyed that he has made this apology. I have ordered two copies of his book and like Planet of the Humans, it will be a useful tool for me personally to refute the lies of AGW.
Allan,
I agree; it is much to late for Michael S. to apologize, the damage has already been done. He’s only doing this now because he can see the monstrosity he helped create is starting to run out of steam and he is hoping to avoid the inevitable backlash that is coming. Unfortunately for him, he will now be vilified by both sides. I will let posterity decide if he deserves it.
It’s never too late to apologize. What matters from here forward is what does he do to undo the damage that he has done.
If he thinks all he needs to do is apologize and then fade back into the woodwork, then he is woefully mistaken.
Correct, Mark. The apology is grandiose and self serving. He regrets what he has written in the past it seems. But anything that helps undo some of the damage done by alarmists is welcome. Admission that he thinks a monumental con has been executed on the general population is a start. Many others – scientists, journalists, CEOs, even a few engineers on the gravy train, to name a few – who have stubbornly stood their alarmist ground in order to not look foolish for falling for or taking advantage of the con may follow his lead and let rationality and logic and facts and honesty determine their public utterances.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/09/study-the-montreal-ozone-treaty-saved-the-arctic-from-global-warming/#comment-2866871
I have studied climate and energy since ~1985, and published on these subjects since 2002. I am confident that my analyses are essentially correct, based in part on my accurate predictive track record since 2002, and the utter failure of all the very-scary predictions of the IPCC and its acolytes.
Reference:
CO2, Global Warming, Climate And Energy
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
I have not studied the ozone question, and I’m not going to do so, because, according to MacRae’s Theory of Radical Green Rat Bastards (see below), we can safely dismiss their latest hypothesis as yet-another self-serving falsehood, like everything else the radical greens have alleged in past decades. These climate fraudsters have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every scary scenario they have alleged has failed to materialize, so they have perfectly negative credibility, and nobody should believe them about anything.
MacRae’s Theory of Radical Green Rat Bastards is a huge time-saver, and based on the past performance of radical greens, it continues to be a highly successful predictor of future green lack-of-credibility.
Regards, Allan 🙂
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/#comment-2684927
Sara wrote:
“A hypothesis? I don’t think any of it is hypothetical. Too many instances of verified occurrence to back up that that statement to make it a hypothesis.”
Hi Sara,
As you know, the scientific progression is Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law, each progression requiring more and more supporting evidence and absence of disproof.
http://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138
My Hypothesis is limited to radical greens, who support false science and use false fabricated crises to promote their toxic anti-human agenda. As such, there is a mountain of evidence to support my Hypothesis, and no evidence (that I know of) to disprove it. Therefore, over the next few years it may be promoted to the level of Theory.
If it is a Theory, it will require a nice name, like “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”. I am not even sure if mine is an original concept – others have probably said this before.
I will therefore submit, immodestly, the proposed name
“MacRae’s Theory of Radical Green Rat Bastards”.
Others are welcome to submit improvements to the name – after all, at this time it is still a Hypothesis. 🙂
–2. My hypothesis is that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.–
I think it’s clear and been known forever, that politicians are the greatest killers.
Radical Greens are tiny minority. They are a religion. A stupid religion, certainly. One could say probably large portion of members of this religion, have done “good things”.
But one can’t say the same thing for politicians. Politicians are lazy and crazy {always have been}. And what they tend to do, is demonize people, instead of governing. And “global warming” is used by politicans to make it seem they are saving the world, when know they are not.
One call Radical Greens useful idiots. Many have. Politicians use “useful idiots”.
So let’s point at real problem, the politicans.
Politician tend crave political power- it’s the reason the US constitution was created. All governments are evil, some are less evil.
It might be difficult to imagine the US government is less evil than some other governments. In terms of power, we given the US government too much power- that is obvious.
A reason for US government having too much power, is related to how poorly they have governed. Or if they governed in vaguely rational way, they would not have given so much power.
Power corrupts.
Basic stuff.
But to matter at hand,
I accept Michael Shellenberger’s apology.
I think it’s possible he might even be a good politician.
If a good politician is even possible, or when I mean a
good politician, it’s always a comparative thing.
And also will accept apologies from all politicans- and
preachers.
Apologies are like a pardon for a crime, one hope no further
crimes are committed, and it’s possible any apology might “encourage” further misbehavior- but that not really related to matter at hand. All humans will continue to do “further misbehavior”.
My apology can not transform people in being saints, but as practical matter, it helps me.
If I accept other people’s apologies, there numerous advantages to me, and not doing it, has numerous disadvantages to me.
Such eagerness to do something good for me, is not a sin.
Rather such selfishness is good.
I am happy to accept to Michael Shellenberger’s apology.
And btw, happiness is a virtue.
Or Dennis Prager is absolutely correct:
Happiness Is a Moral Obligation
“For much of my life, I, like most people, regarded the pursuit of happiness as largely a selfish pursuit. One of the great revelations of middle age has been that happiness, far from being only a selfish pursuit, is a moral demand.”
Hello Baikie:
Since about 1970, policies driven by corrupt, self-serving radical greens have caused the deaths of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of little black and yellow children in the third world. That is not forgivable in my world.
Many of these greens are neo-Malthusians – it is entirely possible, even probable, that this killing was their intent – no rational person could be this stupid for this long – there were many decades of slaughter of innocents, for Christ’s sake!.
See http://green-agenda.com/
I don’t even have the right to forgive the greens for such heinous crimes against humanity. If it were up to me, I’d run Nuremberg trials for green leaders, and administer appropriate sentences
Re forgiveness, let God sort them out. Not my call.
Regards, Allan
“One of the great revelations of middle age has been that happiness, far from being only a selfish pursuit, is a moral demand.”
Good thoughts Baikie. I agree, and I’ll guess that I’ve got a few more miles on my clock – nobody calls me “middle-aged” anymore. :-)..
I’ve done business on six continents in some of the most dangerous countries in the world, and some of the poorest. I have also been quite wealthy, and quite poor.
I have observed that happiness is a choice – some of the poorest people who live in the worst countries in the world are happy, and some of the wealthiest who live in the developed world are miserable. They made that choice.
I started distrusting the so-called environmentalists when I came of age in the late 1960s, in the time when Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” resulted in banning DDT. As kids living on Army bases in the 1950s, we used to ride behind the DDT truck in its fog sprayed weekly to kill mosquitos, with no ill effects to us. I came to learn about the shoddy or purposefully deceptive research on DDT, and that it really had little to no ill effect on anything but the vectors it was designed to eliminate – and that literally millions of deaths worldwide can be rightly blamed on its banning.
The truth does not always win out, at least not in time to help many who are hurt by its suppression. Things are not always as they seem, or as they are presented – and one should always be skeptical, that is the hallmark of science and being a scientist, whether amateur or paid.
So yes, it’s not enough just to say “Sorry!” and walk away…
That link to gwpf is a partial and leads back to the cancelled Forbes page.
I thought Forbes was somewhat objective, but are now like the LA times just part of the cancel culture, suppressing anything that does not fit the narrative.
Here’s a link toMichael Scellenberger’s TED talk, mainly about nuclear but also explains renewables increase CO2 emissions.
Forbes has a history of deleting inconvenient stories
The Forbes link is No Longer Active
Here is another copy of the article:
https://news.marketcap.com/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/
Viewing the Html, the hidden article is surrounded by an element called “contributor__retracted”. Maybe he is just editing it and will re-post…..
So viewing his Twitter feed, Michael states that Forbes has decided to pull the article.
That was fast.
He actually said Forbes “censored” his article. Powerful words.
The ‘no longer active’ cover can be removed by feeding the Forbes article URL to outline.com.
Thanks for sharing the link !
Forbes are reporting the link is no longer active.
Apostasy will not go unpunished.
Dave
This is the station to which Michael Mann could have ascended if he had a change of heart. Any of a very small number of key insiders could have told the public that this is more hype than fact, more correlation than causation (and now the correlation has fractured) and the extent to which facts have been misrepresented.
There are only a few spots on the new bandwagon and Shellenberger just took a seat in the front row.
I suspect that Mann’s ego is too large to ever let him recant.
Mann didn’t just mislead. In his recantation, Mann would have to admit actively fabricating data and methods.
Not sure that Mann fabricated data. He certainly abused a lot of data, giving certain data sets MUCH more weight than others, turning data sets upside down, etc.
Over 3 dozen replications of the hockey stick by different groups of researchers using different methodologies with different data sets from different locations. Pages2K uses 692 data sets from 648 locations.
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
Imagine what Mark Steyn would do with THAT!
Was he the guy who got caught using some of his data upside down?
The hockey stick is a fabrication, Jeff. It failed the 1400 verification step, and Mann’s BACK TO 1400 CENSORED directory shows he knowingly used a false method to manufacture the hockey stick shape.
He also truncated tree ring series and grafted them onto the air temperature record to make a fake precipitous 20th century temperature increase.
Steve McIntyre has documented it all.
Jack Dale:
**Over 3 dozen replications of the hockey stick by different groups of researchers using different methodologies with different data sets from different locations. Pages2K uses 692 data sets from 648 locations.**
Same nonsense Jack keeps repeating. They changed a couple of things but the bad parts remained and they claim “independent study”. Jack and the hockey team keep repeating the same claim.
I agree with Gerald and not with Jack.
Replicating someone else’s errors is not a “proof” of something true. It is a replication. If someone shows all the original replication was in error and those error(s) were not corrected, then they are all in error.
The greater point is that the temperature hockey stick does not represent what it claimed to represent. One cannot concatenate two data sets with different smoothings and make a valid claim for a change in slope. That is just so, so wrong. The paper MBH98 should never had passed peer review because it is logically defective and the data were not made available.
Jack Dale – I cannot believe that anyone is still giving any credibility to MBH98 falsehoods – here is what I wrote in 2012, and I was being extremely kind to MBH, given the facts. Kudos to Steve McIntyre for sorting through this steaming pile of horse pucks.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/the-question-put-to-dr-mann-at-disneyland-today/#comment-833737
Mann et al’s “hokey-stick” papers attempted to eliminate from the historic record the reality of the Medieval Warm Period. Why? Because the MWP was warmer than today, and proves that there is NOTHING unusual happening in today’s climate. There IS NO humanmade global warming crisis.
One of the global warming conspirators even wrote in a 1995 email that “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Here is some of the evidence, in testimony to the US Senate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw
The first of Mann’s hokey-stick papers appeared soon thereafter, in 1998. Sure enough, the Medieval Warm Period AND Little Ice Age were GONE, vanished from the historical record!
No doubt the widespread famines of ~1700 during the Maunder Minimum, and the freezing cold of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in 1812 during the Dalton Minimum never really happened – these were all fabrications of “climate deniers”, all employed by BIG OIL (sarc off).
The ClimateGate1&2 emails confirmed the reprehensible character and odious behaviour of the Global Warming cabal. There is no need to debate these facts.
Meanwhile, the very-scary predictions of the IPCC and other global warming alarmists have ALL failed to materialize – the warmists predictive track record is abysmal – it is 100% FALSE.
Despite increases in atmospheric CO2, there has been NO net global warming for 10-15 years.
Mann-made global warming is the mantra of scoundrels and imbeciles.
10 years of warming
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2010/to:2020/trend/plot/uah6/from:2010/to:2020
15 years of warming
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2005/to:2020/trend/plot/uah6/from:2005/to:2020
Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
As for temperature
“Here we analyze the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.’
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
A very lengthy response seems to have been censored. I will try again, later.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/16/new-findings-from-the-neotropics-suggest-contraction-of-the-itcz/#comment-2918544
Fossil fuel combustion and global warming also cause:
* Corona virus
* Hemorrhoids
* Toenail fungus
* Planters warts
* Explosive diarrhea
* The heartbreak of psoriasis
* Wilder weather
* Human sacrifice
* Dogs and cats living together
* Mass hysteria…
I wonder why, when I went to read more, that the Forbes page is ‘no longer available’?
Forbes now puts up a message saying “This page is no longer active”. It seems the censors have won another battle.
It’s too late for that. Much like the chain reaction we call WW1, it will spin on around the world while the rain forests are plowed under and the rivers in Africa and south Asia turn into garbage dumps.
The political crusades cannot be turned at this point. You can only ratchet up the volume on other causes to help tone down policy commitment to the Party planks.
“I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser…”
I have always wondered what it took to become an environmentalist.
The first of many, I am sure.
Honesty and better judgement are seen here.
I’ve not read his book but this is verging on heroic. His career depends on climate change phobia. He’s a big pro-nuke; making him a plentiful energy person too. Yet many young pro-nuke professionals have increasingly tried to glue nuclear power to climate change phobia. Increasingly so over the last 15 years. It never really worked for them. Maybe that recent French poll had something to do with his change of heart; that and trying to talk to the climate activists at recent COP meetings. For those who do not understand the French poll. The facts:
1. nuclear power has dominated French electricity production since the 1980s.
2. nuclear power is the most efficient non-CO2 based energy source.
A recent poll of young French people showed they considered nuclear power caused man-made global warming. In a large poll of 3000+, “69% of respondents thinking nuclear contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change“.
Plus: Schellenberger’s support is nearly entirely from the Left. He is certainly still on the Left. But I guess it’s a Left which drifted so far from useful practical concerns that he can’t recognize it anymore.
The French are largely unaware of nuclear energy’s role in combatting climate change, with 69% of respondents thinking nuclear contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. “As an illustration of this perception, 11% and 10% of people think that coal and oil (respectively) contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear,” Orano said.
I bet they think so because of the water vapor escaping from the nuc plants … 🙂
That is really shocking – I remember when I was a kid the French education system was held up as an example to the world.
To Eric:
The French Education Nationale is a shadow of it’s former self, with only just above average PISA scores in reading, maths and science. It’s a bureaucratic dinosaur of an institution.
https://data.oecd.org/pisa/reading-performance-pisa.htm#indicator-chart
To Petit_Barde:
yes the cooling tower photo’s that accompany nearly all climate articles is a classic of subtle anti propaganda. Nothing like a good smokey chimney image to trigger emotional bias before you even start reading.
Our Mr Green, Nicolas Hulot, previous Ecology minister in France, wanted to shutdown 17 reactors by 2025!! I was ready to invest heavily in candlewax.
Thankfully that didn’t happen, and he has now left the government with his knickers in a twist.
That unfortunately is not the end of the extreme left green movement (Socialists) in France, and recent local elections have them making headway in some pretty big cities, Lyon, Bordeaux and Strasbourg.
More likely because hard-core environmentalists – who push renewables – tell them. The climate scare has always justified itself as an anti-fossil fuel campaign. That’s its prime motivation. As such, it must always be against plentiful energy.
“69% of respondents thinking nuclear contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change“
Well… Yes?
Those power plants emit water vapor. And what is water if not a greenhouse gas?
I’m sure it doesn’t affect climate change one iota, but water vapor is still a greenhouse gas.
Maybe it was the question that was stupid and not the respondents?
Heroism or pragmatism? I think Shellenberger simply looked down the tracks and realized the AGW gravy train is about to derail and wanted to get off while he still could. Then again, maybe he just couldn’t lie to his own children anymore (although he was OK with lying to ours). Either way, he’s no hero.
It takes courage to break ranks. Credit where it’s due.
The page is still available on the wayback machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20200629001029/https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/06/28/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/#16d932a15dc3
The article is amazing. It is clear why forbes had to take it down.
Michael Shellenberger has completely disappeared from Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/consent/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/
Wait, what? No. If you search Forbes for “michael shellenberger” you will see many articles written about him. Including this one from 2019 that basically says everything he has now put into book form:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#59a69ef612d6
Gutless Forbes pulled the article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200629001029/https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/06/28/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/#16d93d795dc3
M. Crichton in “State of Fear” came to the same conclusion.
It is said we grow to adulthood very slowly when times are good.
This is a welcome climbdown from a hysterical position.
However I am embittered and have blood in my eye.
A pox on all their houses.
Too much wealth has been stolen ,wasted and redistributed for my forgiveness to come easily.
Chicken Little Rules,some of the Alarmed Ones are now becoming frightened of what they created?
Funny that,most people here are uncomfortable with using dishonest means to promote a political position.
I suspect that even in the tightest circles of Gang Green they recognize the times are changing.
The Burn Loot Murder maniacs are their fellow travellers .
The tax paying citizens are broke and imprisoned by the political allies of Gang Green.
Resources are suddenly very scarce.
Big Government is in its last spending spree,before the scam is up.
The days of the social parasite as public service are numbered.
Simply because what cannot go on,won’t.
“Too much wealth has been stolen ,wasted and redistributed for my forgiveness to come easily.”
Just so, JR! My simmering ire, as well!
Already taken down at Forbes.
“A leopard cannot change its spots,” although a book promotion tour may provide impetus to pretend. Environmentalism and real, human suffering are largely synonymous, and by my reckoning, Mr. Shellenberger has 30 years of apologizing to do before a more “meaningful” discussion is possible.
A mistake is not the same as malice.
I agree – words have meaning, but I don’t assert malice in Mr. Shellenberger’s environmentalist pursuits. He committed himself to what he perceived to be the truth over those, several decades. And comparatively speaking with specific regard to his environmentalist peers, Mr. Shellenberger has displayed a greater sense of practicality in “solutions” than others. But a mistake (i.e., an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong) is usually (but not always) a one-off event. A series of “mistakes” over an extended time period is representative of willful ignorance – a cognitive bias (or the Dunning-Kruger effect for a neat-sounding label). Via ‘An Ecomodernist Manifesto,’ the Anthropocene is very much “real” – (again, words have meanings). “There remain, however, serious long-term environmental threats to human well-being, such as anthropogenic climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification.” Mr. Shellenberger, while rightly identifying the detrimental biasedness of climate alarmism, remains seized of the underlying assumption of modern environmentalism – humanity is destroying the planet. There’s room for “refinement” on that assumption. I could forgive Mr. Shellenberger’s “mistake” if this refinement was the starting point, but it is not. Therefore, I look forward to his continued apology.
–Mr. Shellenberger, while rightly identifying the detrimental biasedness of climate alarmism, remains seized of the underlying assumption of modern environmentalism – humanity is destroying the planet. There’s room for “refinement” on that assumption. I could forgive Mr. Shellenberger’s “mistake” if this refinement was the starting point, but it is not. Therefore, I look forward to his continued apology.–
Humans [humanity] are destroying the planet. But want greenies want, does cause destruction of the planet.
One needs to destroy to create anything. Greenies goal are destroying a lot and not creating anything which beneficial- whether to humans or any lifeform.
So, I think humans could live on the ocean. Obviously humans living on ocean [destroys “open ocean”] and obviously living on ocean could be worse than not living on ocean.
The idea of government making humans settlements on ocean would be very, very, bad idea. Governments can’t even manage what is quite simple to manage. But what could be something simple for a government to do, is allow human settlements on the ocean. And could start with what is government currently doing to prevent human settlements on the oceans.
One could argue they could do things which might encourage it, but government start removing what doing which stops it.
Or it’s always better for government to try to go in the direction more freedom rather continuing to restrict freedom.
One could think of many advantages to living on ocean. Some people want it, as a way to get away from bad effects of government. That seems reasonable to me.
Currently we have people who want to defund the police and they want territory they can control. Both are related.
And add cheap ways of living. Cheap ways living can be new territory. And it could a good idea to give ocean areas away for free, with with some rules. Generally people living on ocean shouldn’t be harming people not living on the ocean. One could imagine people living on Ocean could breed a more criminal environment. But one also imagine if ocean area has value, people living there, have strong reason to limit criminal activity.
In terms of government one should favor high value real estate on the ocean. Or “free land” but structures have high value. And high value of structures should be that they designed to last a long time. So you have building codes which require the structures will last longer than building on land.
Now weather not going to get worse, but structures could made to withstand really bad weather. The plus side, is earthquakes are less of problem. Or land earthquake code, is not applicable, but whatever effect from earthquakes, have considered- just saying not same rules.
One has problems of trying to create the technology and trying to make the technology work with a building code. This is hard problem for politicans who are idiots. But make the builder have liability for not making structures which “should” last a long time.
So general idea is to have at minimal structural design and construction which requires the building to last more than 100 years. One assume without any maintenance, things are going last very long, but you can design to keep maintenance costs low.
But also have test if design and construction “work”. So you can have not have “the cost saving one can get from large scale production” due to apparent saving actually being a huge cost when plan does not go as planned. So relatively small scale and many different attempts to see which works- rather than one enormous scale operation which is almost certain to fail.
Anyhow to make something last with low maintenance is a type of cheap housing. But making ugly and like prison is not “a type cheap” desired.
Now, I think it has to done on large enough scale, but 1000 units or small town isn’t what I would call large scale. If city trying to solve a housing shortage, you should not be throw that problem on having ocean settlements. Unless planning for beyond 100 years in the future. You plan on something that you don’t know how going to be done.
My point is ocean settlement are destroying an open ocean, but possible ocean settlements “can better for the ocean” and better for people. And in couple centuries, one could have a lot people living on the oceans. And near future, when it looks like maybe a lot people could living ocean in say in future of 20 year in the future- that future growth potential “helps” 20 years before it happens. Or 2 centuries is more immediate than it seems.
Anyhow, the up front cost to public to start this, is cheap.
But I think lunar water mining is something I think is more important- let’s explore lunar polar region to determine if lunar water is mineable by 2024. It might work out. And can do lot’s of things. But being on topic, should pushing for more nuclear energy- and also could include floating nuclear power plants off shore, which could work for people living onshore, as well as off shore.
Nothing is more lethal than a true believer and Shellenberger remains a true believer.
“A leopard cannot change its spots,”
Al Gore’s version was, “A leopard cannot change its stripes,”
Roger
Spot on! 🙂
And in the next breath, he would declare that liberals are the smart ones.
He He He
https://web.archive.org/web/20200629073911/https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/06/28/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/#5e840667614b
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere”
Even though I like what he is saying, this is a tell. Why does he believe he has the authority to appoint himself as a spokesperson for environmentalists everywhere?
I think the intent of his proclamation is not what you think.
I don’t think its anything more than an ego issue. After all, he still says he will save planets, etc., perhaps from being as unsustainable as Berkeley.
A lot of events in a few months :
– Mickael Moore’s film exposing the renewables scam,
– an as usual CO2 concentration observed trend despite a planetary lockdown as if humans activity had almost no impact on it,
– Zion Lights leaving XR and joining Schellenberger,
– and now this Schellenberger’s bombshell …
What’s next ?
Yes, cracks are appearing in the climate alarmist bubble. Cue Leonard Cohen:
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
Most people have no idea about any of those things.
Michael E Mann declares he hates hockey and that trees were just running rings round him…..
Stephen Schneider sends us a message. “Be honest because 1 degree is nothing.”
I wouldn’t trust anything Michael Moore published even if it happened to agree with my point of view. In fact, if I find myself agreeing with Michael Moore, it is time to double-check my beliefs.
Why don’t most climate alarmists seem to have a BS meter? Mine went off at least 30 years ago in regards to this Catastrophic Global Warming issue’
– JPP
I can’t remember who said it, but the quote went something like this:
It doesn’t matter whether global warming is true or not, since it forces us to do things that needed to be done anyway.
Possibly Maurice Strong??
Sounds a lot like what (retired) Colorado Senator Tim Wirth said once. I’m likely wrong.
That was Senator Tim Wirth. In 1993, he said, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…”
Longer story here about manufacturing climate alarm, including Wirth’s commitment to lie.
Wirth was also the guy who scheduled Hansen’s 1988 congressional testimony for the historically hottest day of the year in DC, and then turned off the air conditioning the night before, so as to make the room sweltering.
He’s got blood on his hands, does Tim Wirth.
I think that 1988 congressional testimony got reported fairly soon. I think Hansen bragged about it.
My BS meter went off big time when I saw that !
– JPP
That’s a paraphrase of then Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO) quoted in National Journal in 1988.
“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is (to) try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway”
Wirth went on to manage Ted Turner and Jane Fonda’s huge global warming fund. He did the right thing anyway.
Pat Michaels
The two Michaels: Moore and Shellenberger. The thin end of the wedge, both of them seeing censorship in action for the first time.
Since I live 2 or 3 miles from Berkeley, I’ve been wondering for well over ten years why Berkeley students didn’t wake up to the crap they have been Fed.
I’m going to read more of the links here:
http://environmentalprogress.org/founder-president
“apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years.”
More like 40 or 50 years
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/23/anti-fossil-fuel-activism-disguised-as-climate-science/
He posted the page to his Twitter account too:
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1277380835532877824