Call me a SKEPTIC.   The science is unsettled and the proof is not as certain as claimed by the “consensus.”  A jury of laypeople could be easily persuaded that scientific consensus is bunk.  Consider that scientific leaders questioned Jonas Salk's poliomyelitis vaccine because he was a "cake baker" and not part of their club (Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Great Lifesaver, p. 181 et seq.); the slow-roll affirmation of Alexander Fleming's penicillin discovery; and the widespread disdain of Louis Pasteur's discoveries and Michael Faraday's electromagnetic research by the "consensus" of scientific leaders.  The evidence is equivocal, at best, often politically engineered (sometimes by fabulously wealthy market speculators), and inconsistent.  Nature is a broad mixture of powerful forces; to fix anthropogenic causes as primary in any supposed or confirmed climatic shift is potentially hubris, nothing more.
            In the early '70's and '90's we were warned of a coming ice age (can anyone say Y2K?).  Then we were warned of Global Warning, replete with Hockey Stick temperature charts that proved wrong in a couple of years after the apocalypse was told to be certain.  Now we have just changed the name to Climate Change because we can open that can of worms over any data we choose while relegating conflicting data to the circular file.  In the words of H.L. Mencken "Humbug."
            There are several issues with alternative energy sources.  First, electric cars run on batteries, and their disposal creates an immense environmental hazard.  Second, few are made except with crony capitalism where the government of Japan subsidizes their makers and Elon Musk is great at working the bureaucratic halls of these Unites States, otherwise the Teslas would be unaffordable even for their well-heeled purchasers.
            Wind turbines as currently deployed (and more are going in) kill 1M (one Million) bats and 800K (Eight Hundred Thousand) birds a year.  So much for environmentalism, because, after all, birds are not snail darters: I need my Prius so I can [smugly] proclaim my love of the planet even though it is on balance more destructive of the planet than a GMC Duramax 250.  Solar Panels deployed across vast swathes of the desert destroy reptile and terrapin habitat.  Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are UGLY compared with mountains, plains, forests, trees, hills and desert.  Destruction of environment and habitat to save environment and habitat?  NOT!
            Granted George Soros (~32B net worth), Tom Steyer (~1B net worth) and others give big money to the "right" candidates and PACs, but those candidates foster policies that most negatively affect the very people, the poor, indigent and disabled, whom they profess the greatest desire to serve.  Even assuming that carbon is the devil in the non-existent plague of climate change, a huge stretch, hydrocarbon production of energy for transportation and homes makes sound economic sense — it is affordable and it does not kill birds and bats by their millions (the data above is for only the U.S., not the world).  Maybe Georgie boy will step up to the plate and help poor people, who can barely afford to keep the lights on now, have heat and light as he forces the slaughter of countless innocent beasts (need I remind you that beasts and plants are also God's Children?) through energy generation methods costing three times more than current alternatives.  Moreover, why is nuclear energy “off the table?”
            When a wing of scientists seeks to quiet those in its community who question the verity of the conclusions of the wing, and when that wing compounds its efforts to squelch dissent by refusing to share core data for fear that others would only poke holes in the conclusion, I struggle to sign on to the consensus.  Scientific advances follow multiple failures: hypotheses are continuously modified as data and experience dictate change.  Our faithful media care not for real science, only science that blames mankind for changes that may be properly explained by the great forces of nature.
            The above chart comes from a website readily found through a subsidiary of Alphabet’s search engine.  The article details that the scientist who first raised the hockey stick in triumph made statistical errors in analysis, and that the magazine Nature (after eight months of review) refused to publish the findings of the men who discovered the flaws because their letter exceeded 500 words in length.  Climate science, like too many departments at institutions of higher learning, may be a closed, clubby affair, where only those with certain predispositions and beliefs need apply.  Is this one more sign that our universities are the havens of immoderates who care not about truth when it harms their agenda?  You have the power of decision, and you may want to follow the money because the letting of government contracts in the area of alternative energy has the familiar smell of the surfeit of criminal pardons at the end of the Clinton administration: those who pay, get to play!  And they do it with our money.
            There is something rotten in the state of Climate Change, and it fits the general pattern of those who promise utopia so long as they are given plenary power.  The odd thing is that this issue, like the Minimum Wage issue, will have the deepest negative impact on the poor and disaffected; it will deepen their reliance on princely benefactors, benefactors whose recent performance is to be decried if we judge by the levels of youth unemployment in the ‘Hood.  Silencing critics, scoffing at doubters, and being certain of correctness are generally signs of people with significant concerns at being found out for the simple errors that led to their erroneous conclusions.  When these great scientists are silent at the slaughter of innocent creatures as though the killing of a few bazillion birds, bats, butterflies and bees is nothing compared to how firmly they stood on principle.  Let’s stop the insanity of alternative energy crony capitalism and give the earth back to the animals over whom we are given the shepherd’s duty.