Bad on general principle

From Global Warming and Suckers by Dystopic. I am an ardent environmentalist and yet deeply skeptical on evidentiary grounds about the global warming hysteria. The models are too unreliable, the motives are too suspect, the data sets keep getting manipulated, the data sources are inconsistent with one another, and the temperature histories undermine the current levels and variability. Polluting the environment is a real environmental problem that should warrant being addressed on its own merits without fanning the flames of hysteria. The more a dishonest narrative is pushed on a skeptical public, the less likely the public will be to act on real and immediate environmental issues. At least, that is my concern. Dystopia captures the sentiment well:

Thinking of this, I decided to peruse Taleb’s opinion the matter, which I located here. The thrust of the brief article is that the climate models and scaremongering are not required, nor are the specific policies espoused to correct them. Taleb’s skepticism of such modeling techniques is a matter of record. But, he tells us, the risk of global catastrophe from screwing around with Mother Nature shouldn’t be ignored. We have only one Earth, after all. It sounded sensible to me.

I’ve often thought that, were the Left truly honest about their concern for the environment, this would be the position to take. In other words, the models don’t work well, and the data is conflicting and, in any event, not accurate over a sufficiently long amount of time to be particularly useful. But, polluting the Earth is bad on general principle. Put simply, we have one planet (for now).