> I asked what you believe there because I think those who doubt it are ill-informed and biased, and so I doubt their arguments on renewables. For someone who

> I asked what you believe there because I think those who doubt it are ill-informed and biased, and so I doubt their arguments on renewables. For someone who has no real skin in the game (I'm a computer nerd, data-handling guy by training and trade), I'm probably one of the most well-informed and unbiased folks (at least of my type) out there on the subject of climate change. I've been following it on and off ever since great "Global Cooling" scare the of the 1970s, back when I was just a kid. And, seeing what I've seen out there and knowing what I know now, on any given day lately I'm tempted to just chuck the whole concept of anthropogenic climate change out the window. But then I back off on that because that's probably taking things too far. As far as where I my own thoughts fall on the subject, I would probably best be described as a "lukewarmer", to borrow that term. I believe that the climate has warmed lately, but not nearly as much as is being claimed. That this warming is largely natural and cyclical, and that while man may very well be playing a role in it, his influence on it is not nearly as dramatic as is being claimed. And that to the extent that man does play a role here, this goes beyond any effects that CO2 emissions themselves may have on the situation. It's not just all about the CO2, in other words, and it may in fact have very little to do with CO2. As to where things go wrong, the first problem probably has to do with the fact that an awful lot of the climate-related "data" being bandied about is basically just made up. (I'm not kidding here; you would probably be as appalled as I was to find out the details.) And what isn't just made up is often of remarkably low quality. So there really isn't enough quality data at all, at least not at the present time, to justify making "the sky is falling" pronouncements. But these keep being made anyway, by people who should probably know better, or who at least fall somewhere on the spectrum between ill-informed and plain old dishonest. And I can tell you that from what I've seen lately, an awful lot of the folks who are falling for this stuff hook, line, and sinker - and at least some of the folks who are saying it, too - can probably best be described as irrational. Along those lines, James Hansen, one of the Grand Old Men of climate change science, has of late taken to saying and doing things which make even his own acolytes take pause. But that doesn't stop his name from showing up on research papers such as the following. (I have a lot to say about that paper, too; maybe later.) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018JD029522 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018... And then you have Greta Thunberg, the sixteen-year-old autistic Swedish schoolgirl who of late has been held up as something of an activist paragon in the climate change community. But now that her mother has claimed (or so it would appear) that young Greta can "see" CO2 in the air with her naked eyes (I presume this means all 400ppm, or 0.04%, of it), based on the outrageousness of such a statement I expect that we probably won't be hearing or seeing much more from or about young Greta. As for the future of wind and solar, I don't necessarily expect that they're just going to be abandoned or anything, but I also don't expect that they are ever going to come close to living up to the promises which are being made for them, both physically and economically. Much like coal plants today, I expect that as they reach the end of their useful lives they probably won't just be automatically replaced with like kind, but rather with something else, whatever that may be - probably natural gas, maybe even nuclear. (Once again I can give you local, real-world examples of this type of thing if you want.)