I thought global warming and climate change were done. We have watched the train of pseudo-science politics since the 1880s. We had eugenics for eighty years, the vision of Margaret Sanger promoted as "science" to deflect those who opposed forced sterilizations and promoting abortions for presumed-inferior races. In 1970 environmentalism took over. We had an impending planet-wide ice age, then we were running out of oil by 2000, then acid rain, then mercury in tuna fish then the ozone layer hole. The train stopped for three decades at the global-warming station. When global-warming predictions were wrong and we had six years of unforecast brutal winters 2000-2005 it became climate change.

     So what is it? Our best measurements show our planet warmed 0.5°C (1°F) from 1920 to 1998. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has risen steadily from 1940 through the present. Starting in 1960 human beings started burning significant amounts of coal and oil, more recently natural gas, for electricity and transportation. The theory of global warming, now climate change, is

     Let's see that again. Global warming in 1920 was caused by CO₂ increase in 1940 which was caused by burning coal and oil in 1960. That's it. That's the theory, they have graphs and diagrams to prove it, and anybody who doesn't buy into it isn't going to get a job in any liberal-progressive university.

     I've written several essays explaining why I don't believe it.

     First, I'd like to point out that the burden of proof is on those suggesting a connection. Not only is it good science, it's good social and political policy. Imagine what would happen if every half-cocked theory generated follow-on social and political reaction.

     Actually, I don't have to imagine it. The science-politics of eugenics brought us horrors beyond imagining in the United States and later in Europe., The impending planet-wide ice age, running out of oil by 2000, acid rain, mercury in tuna fish, and the ozone layer hole all brought policy that ranged from ridiculous to destructive.

     The political and economic consequences of climate change response are staggering. Cheap coal was the fuel that changed the human race from mosty-starving to mostly-fed. We can mine and burn coal cleanly so the black-soot skies of the old rail yards are a distant memory. Taking away the energy that comes from coal and oil would be a return to poverty less horrifying than the consequences of eugenics, but, ultimately, more devastating.

     Second, the science itself does not bear scrutiny. Besides the obvious fallacy that 1920 warming could not be caused by 1940 CO₂, the warming stopped in 1998 while the CO₂ levels kept rising. That may not prove anything, but it certainly casts serious doubt on any claim they're connected.

     The CO₂ rise similarly began twenty years before fossil fuels became a major energy source. If that's not enough, we had COVID-19. The political-economic response to COVID-19 was to shut down industry and transportation, a major reduction in humanity's CO₂ emissions with no change in the CO₂ rise. Again, that may not prove anything, but it certainly casts serious doubt on any claim they're connected.

     As model after model and prediction after prediction failed to predict climate, the zealots continued to be zealots. Scientists faced with prediction errors go back and review their assumptions and hypotheses as I have done in my own science work for four decades. Their behavior, more like religion than science, should tell us plenty about climate advocates.

     Nuclear power is the proof that the climate-change advocates are ill intentioned. What could be more desirable to those trying to reduce humanity's "carbon footprint" than a tried-and-true power source that can provide 100% of the electricity we use carbon-free with the technology we already have. If we move to electric cars, then we'll need 40% more electricity, also within the capability of nuclear power. Yet the anti-carbon movement is almost entirely anti-nuclear.

     Windmills and solar panels are cute and fun, but they take a lot of energy and bad chemicals for their construction and their disposal. Hydro-electric energy means damming fragile ecosystems. So we have a nuclear-power answer already available that the global-warming advocates reject. One has to wonder why.

     In case you still want evidence that the global-warming-climate-change movement is ill intentioned, consider the corruption angle where Al Gore bought corn futures before he used his political power to push ethanol into our automobile fuel and the notion that Greta Thunberg and Bill Nye are posing as climate experts.

So go work on things that are true, environmental causes like aquifers and fresh water, food-suppply causes like pest control, economic issues like productivity and employment, or political causes like tyranny and hate. That way we can do some good in these crazy times.