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
Glad to know that he snapped out of it and sees reality. This is progress, and I hope that it continues. Maybe he can influence some of the less rabid ecohippies somehow.
Wood and coal are the worst fuels for heating a home. They both produce soot which, in an enclosed area, is really bad for your lungs. But if you have no other choice, you use what’s available. Cooking with a wood-fired stove is a real skill which should never be lost, and the stove is usually vented to outside the building/house/whatever. Cooking over an outdoor fire is also a skill, and I’m not referring to roasting marshmallows on a stick. Until the closed stove was developed, kitchens had an open range that burned enormous amounts of fuel, just to cook the food. Otherwise, people cooked in the fireplace.
Using either coal or wood for heating is kind of inefficient and, as I said, they both produce soot, coal being worse than wood, and soot is bad for you, period. But if you have no choice, those fuels are what you use. Oil lamps will light your home when the power goes out, much better than candles.
I really prefer natural gas over wood for cooking, but I will always use whatever is available, especially in the winter. We’ve had at least one power outage per year in my county in the winter, over the past four years. Too much wet snow and it freezes on the lines and the whole grid goes down. Because my stove is an older model I can light the burners cooktop with a kitchen match and cook food.
The more rabid members of the Greenbeaners really don’t want you to cook or be warm at all. It’s okay for them to do it, because they use microwaves for “cooking” and that uses electricity. I do wonder how they’d survive if they had to face the reality of no electricity *period* and were forced to use fossil fuels for heating and cooking…. but since they microwave their food (I AM being sarcastic here), they’ll like become very, very hungry.
@ur momisugly Naomi Seibt, looks like Michael Shellenberger took your advice and stopped wanting to panic, and began to Think !
I just googled him. It’s all over the net.
Uh-oh. Scoldilocks will not be pleased.
So two daming reports on flaws on environmentalism , Michael Schellenberger , Michael Moore, plus a 3rd defection by Zion lights, to the nuclear lobby, all within the space of two months ,all after the announcement that cop 26 postponed till November 2021.i never did buy into the official reason COP26 postponed due to covid.
Both schellenberger and Moore pretty much rip the heart out of environmental extremist predictions ,both in particular in regard to energy policy,
Theres nothing on MSM yet,that I’ve seen that any of the above have any coverage, Forbes article removed.
Greenpeace and extreme rebellion, will now have another front to fight on ,Greenpeace will never capitulate to anything nuclear,
I dont think this has been a lights on moment for schellenberger, Moore and lights, even though it’s been portrayed this way, there is a political shift / split in the environment movement , with I’m guessing some governments backing the shift after realising wind and solar are never going to be mass energy providers .
The fallout will be huge if this shift gains momentum, will the governments who have spent billions on failed predictions be it climate or energy take the blame, will the blame be put on the scientists, or will it be carefully brushed under the carpet, ?
I blame (thank?) Michael Moore. His exposing Big Green apparently has opened some eyes while also giving cover for people to jump from a sinking ship to save themselves. Likely we are just seeing the start of a bunch of mea culpa’s. Two in the last week is just the beginning.
For what its worth, Michael Shellenberger’s mea culpa didn’t just occur last week. If you google 𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿 you’ll find numerous talks he’s given going back to Oct 2016 warning about unfounded fear of nuclear and unwarranted faith in renewables.
I’m afraid the Green Blob will use their favorite weapon and “cancel” Michael Shellenberger for the sin of apostasy against Green Dogma. Shellenberger is a brave man.
The TWITter comments are largely supportive, but there are a few ninnies in there still whining about “ocean acidifcation” and such nonsense. One even solicited the advice of Moonbat, wanting his take on Shellenberger’s “transformation”.
Are there any estimates how much personal financial gain Michael Schellenberger got from his role in climate alarmism, including his apologetic book?
And like L. Nemoy, “I am not Spock” and “I am Spock” he can always follow up with another one if money gets tight, at least reading Nemoy is highly entertaining!
Schellenberger does have a point: It is not the loud obnoxious people who created this problem, it is the silent bystanders “even if it is not true, it helps us to save resources”, who created the current waste of money into pointless activism.
LoN
I don’t understand some of the vitriol directed at Mike for his change of views. We want people to change their minds and see things our way, and then we abuse the ones we do? If you insist on taunting the people who have the courage to reconsider their positions, and they end up getting abuse from both sides, you might find there are fewer people willing to change their minds.
Yep, I think what he did is pretty gutsy. He didn’t have to do it.
Shellenberger has made a courageous statement. Not everyone has his integrity.
John Maynard Keynes:
When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?
The facts have never changed, CO2 does not control the climate.
https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g
Yeah, that old hypothesis died under the microscope. Thirty years of failed models and predictions.
Aren’t you missing a sarc tag?
Doesn’t take much to convince Jack.
It is often said in the context of politicized views such as climate change to never apologize because the woke take it as a sign of weakness and go into a feeding frenzy. So I would suggest Shellenberger not apologize to the climate skeptics as many are sure to reject an apology. And sure enough, there are plenty of posts here sneering at his apology. I don’t want him to grovel, I just want him to bravely search for truth wherever that leads him. The past can’t be recalled so let’s all do better in the future.
Vitriol?
You mean violent hate and anger expressed through severe criticism.
I don’t see any of that expressed here, or hardly any.
His problem is not us………it’s them……nothing worse in their view than an apostate.
Your point is well-taken. “Vitriol” was too strong a term. But there are some here who find an apology is not good enough – maybe they want him to wear a hair shirt? My point is that, like Lincoln, we should “let ’em up easy” if we want to encourage others to follow him.
To a large degree it’s bitterness regarding the huge amount of damage done in the name of fighting global warming. Not to mention the abuse that has been heaped upon anyone who questions the dogma of global warming.
It’s quite understandable, even if it is misquided.
What matters now is what does schellenberger do now, to help undo the damage he was partly responsible for.
Indeed – we should preserve the moral high ground and leave the spite to the destructionists.
Something about one sinner repenting, but I am an atheist and don’t know the quote.
There are none so righteous as the recently converted
I doubt if there has been a recent conversion. This is the same line he has been using for the past 15 years. I posted some of that material yesterday.
David,
I applaud him for changing his views, if he really did, but apologizing for all environmentalists is a bit presumptuous, don’t you think? It shows his socialist/elitist roots are still strong and will continue to bias and distort all his viewpoints.
Nope … he said he was sorry … when they do that you have to be happy with it.
And in the true spirit of his contrite apology, and on behalf of David Youssy and all other WUWT readers, I accept his apology.
As such, we all forgive him & we all forgive everyone of the other “environmentalists” that he included in his behest.
Done.
I agree David, we should applaud his courage in coming forward with the truth the way he has. It is hard to speak out against your peers, I lost all of my friends and I am not world renowned, this was a huge thing for him to do.
We need others to have the courage to also come forward, we need to support and encourage them, despite their past deeds. Dumping on them achieves nothing.
+10^42
Now over to Grist and the others to courteously thank them.
Cue Gilda Radner: “Never Mind.”
My guess is he’s about to experience some serious hate.
Are the rats finally abandoning the sinking ship?
Blessed the sinner who repents.
But the damage he helped do is still with us.
What became of Trotsky in Mexico?
“will the blame be put on the scientists,”
Probably, so maybe we should compile a list of the most deserving targets. I’ll start with my top three:
Mann
Hansen
Trenberth
Schmidt
Ooops that’s four.
Five if you include Trofim Karl.
Since summer sea ice will not be cooperating with the climate liars this year, we might need to elevate Mark Serreze to bullseye status too.
If you want to blame scientists, blame the APS, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Chemical Society.
They could have stopped the whole AGW business in its tracks by blowing the whistle on it as fake science. But they didn’t. They stayed silent early on, and went on to become active colluders.
The scientific societies are like cops who colluded with thugs. They let it happen. Blame them.
Yep, and the AGU.
….. and further seriously, since Arctic sea ice minima have been on a slightly upward trend since 2007, I think that unless we make it clear that people with hiring and firing privileges are known to be watching them, we are going to see a new algorithm for sea ice extent. Ship’s buckets even, eh Trofim Karl?
Who can I write to?
Members of those societies never had a chance to vote on the issue, at least in the case of ACS of which I am a member. Their policies were formed by “leadership.”
It is a leadership issue, Scissor. Nevertheless the rank-and-file did not revolt, although to their credit there were loud protests when the then-president (I believe it was Bassam Shakhashiri) announced AGW as a big problem.
I’m a chemist as well, but resigned my ACS membership years ago, after realizing they did nothing for me.
30 October last year I wrote to the ACS board of directors about AGW; addressed to secretary@acs.org. The email included a link to my paper.
Here’s the text:
+++++++++++++
Dear ACS Board Members,
It is time to change the official ACS position on CO2 emissions.
I have published the first paper to evaluate the reliability of global air temperature
projections.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Climate models have no predictive value.
In order to determine the impact, if any, of CO2 emissions on the climate, the lower limit
of resolution of climate models must improve by a factor of at least 100.
In the meantime, climate models cannot reliably project air temperature, or elucidate any
CO2 effect.
Some of you are analytical chemists. You especially will appreciate the consequences of
the following: in my six-year effort to publish this work, I have found that climate
modelers evidence no understanding of the distinct meaning of physical accuracy, or of
calibration, of resolution, of uncertainty, or of propagated error. I can document these
lacks.
I understand this revelation and conclusion are a shock. Nevertheless, if you investigate
you will find the account is accurate.
Science is about what we objectively know about what we have observed. The ACS has
an obligation to present its views in that light, only.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Frank. Ph.D. (Chemistry)
+++++++++++
Their reply was silence. I had hopes the analytical chemists would see the value of a study utilizing calibration error propagation. But apparently not.
The whole field of climate science will be held to account … they allowed the field to become controlled by activism.
That’s nice. One person speaking for all. I seem to recall that kings, tyrants and dictators speak for “all”. Maybe we could all just speak for ourselves. But, on behalf of ALL WUWT subscribers, I accept your apology. Or should I reject it? Stars to reject. No star to accept.
Dang, I forgot, you can NOT star a comment on the website, only in the app.
There’s an app?
Yes, the WordPress app. I have the Android version. You then need to “Follow” the blogs you like. I didn’t spot the “Follow” button on this page, but you can usually spot one. This looks like WUWT’s own “domain” so it might not show up here.
The comment thread options seem to be different between a web page and the app.
Hope that helps.
This guy has written a statement that is full of himself. I think he is just repositioning so he can continue to pontificate from a new platform.
At one time I really thought the U.S. would fall under a dictatorship through either the war on drugs or a desperate need to collect 100% of all taxes; but it now appears that COVID and environmentalism will actually get the job done.
A person can only apologize for himself, nobody can apologize for others.
True contrition requires some humility and I see none. This is political positioning.
Gee whiz. I just went to web site and it is so full of himself it made me sick. Is he actually thinking of running for the Governorship of California? Why would I download a high resolution photo of him?
Seems to me like he had his Patrick Moore moment.
I don’think he is full of himself, he is laying out his credentials as one of the enviro-insane in order to show he isn’t some “denier”.
This is the type of person that the truly climacticly insane cannot really take down without taking themselves down.
Robespierre thought the same.
Hopefully this becomes a trend, those that have caused so much death and damage suddenly ‘Seeing the Light’ or in his case deciding to switch revenue streams from diminishing to increasing. Down the road perhaps it can be pointed out there is no means of justifying or forgiving what they have done short of a personal sacrifice to an active volcano. I won’t be recommending his book, if you view his article you can print it to PDF and send that to anyone that doubts the real agenda.
“Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.’
It would be nice if this were true but as it stands its not while the cancel crowd exists.
If he’s willing to devote most of his wealth to helping those who have been harmed by global warming policies, that would be a good start.
“I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California.”
Note the keyword in that sentence. Unprotected. Most people would skim that sentence and assume that he helped protect the last of the redwoods. Most of the ancient redwoods are already protected. There were a small number that existed outside the existing parklands.
Thanks for that clarification, MarkW.
To everyone who is fed up with twitter and their censorship there is “parler.com”.
I suggest two things:
1. Spell his name right: Shellenberger. No “c”.
2. Read his book and reflect on what he says.
Then, form an opinion.
I intend to do both of these things.
But, meanwhile, before impugning his character and motives, realize that all “activists” have to raise money to continue their activism, unless they simply sell themselves to a deep pocketed entity or think tank. Then, they are co-opted. If he writes a book or speaks for fees, that is perfectly alright with me. If by doing so they can achieve financial independence, it is conceivable they are speaking what they believe, not what their employers want to hear.
I am happy to pay someone who will speak the truth, whether or not it is something I want to hear.
Snake oil salesmen peddling CAGW isn’t the problem. The problem is an educational system that’s so weak a majority of citizens believe the drivel. Anyone with a high school level science background with access to the internet and minimal search skills should be able to see through the bio-fuels, wind, solar and “storage” fraud. Most college graduates can’t even reason past the BS. Sad.
At least his fantastic ego is intact. He has no problem claiming he speaks for “all environmentalists” and claims to have personally prevented a dramatic rise in CO2 levels. What an unbelievable ass! He claims to be an “energy expert” but apparently couldn’t make out the obvious issues that many people here and even Michael Moore twigged to eventually. Where is “Planet of the humans”, anyway? Are we supposed to believe Moore is struggling to edit two inconsequential words out of it?
He can take his apology and stuff it! He’s made thousands of poor people poorer and he’s still a hypocrite and an egomaniac.
That was kinda my take on it. It isn’t like he lied once or twice. He was doing so habitually. So yeah. Stuff-it.
It is hard to abandon the sort of hubris that leads to extreme environmentalist views, but at least he has abandoned the Green Extreme Movement if not his self-centered personal aggrandizement. Still a narcissist, but let’s accept the sincerity of his newfound views and let the personal stuff go. This could be the green insider we have been waiting for to say the Climate Change Crisis Emperor is wearing no clothes.
As for Forbes, it would not surprise me if they pulled his piece because they realized it is basically an infomercial for his book after being blinded to that by their initial surprise at his view. But I am probably just being naive.
This is all encouraging but why does he think that he can apologise on behalf of all environmentalists? That smacks to me too much like father don’t blame them they don’t know what they do. And I don’ t believe that for a moment, they know precisely what they do.
Let’s ask Mike Mann?