My name is David Siegel. Early in , I became interested in climate science and decided to spend the better part of this year trying to learn what I could. What was clear is that skeptics are losing this battle, and I want to tell you why. They understand that the messenger is more important than the message. Fenton knows the game is about credibility and repetition, not science.
As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose. So I did my homework and wrote a 9,word essay aimed at liberals who have a voice, who have access to media, and who might take 30 minutes to educate themselves. They all turned it down. Links really help. If you can help reach Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other influential liberals, I hope to help them understand that the science is not settled.
I think this is the best way to tip the scales back to reasonable, impactful environmentalism. I will, however, read the comments here and will respond if I can.
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind? This is my story. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In , I even wrote a book about it. Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled.
As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms , droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. Climate models are not yet skillful ; predictions are unresolved.
