Interview about Man-Made Global Warming with David Siegel, Switzerland

This interview is about the following source document:

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Photo credit: Bertha Bueno, Ecuador

Interview with David Siegel, Rapperswil, Switzerland

by Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - USA website: efn-usa.org EFN-USA: Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - USA is a non-profit organization headquartered in Denver, Colorado, USA. It promotes public education about the benefits of nuclear energy for humanity and the environment. Our definition is a person who respects the environment. We are affiliated with Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, EFN, website: ecolo.org, headquartered in Houilles, France, a suburb of Paris. EFN was founded by nuclear engineer, environmentalist, author and well known TV commentator, Bruno Comby. In order to understand the importance of nuclear energy, it is necessary to appreciate the role fossil fuels have played in completely changing lifestyles and living standards for more than half of the world's population. Fossil fuels have been used on a large scale for less than 200 years and page 1

brought dramatic improvements in living standards and lifestyles. Some people have been working for 50 years to stop use of fossil fuels based on claims that CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is causing catastrophic, irreversible global warming.

EFN-USA: You recently launched a well-researched, 9,000-word essay on climate science telling your story of how you switched from believing in manmade global warming to being thoroughly skeptical. You now call yourself an “antidecarbonista.” How did that happen?

David Siegel: I’ve spent the last four years or so studying statistics, decision science, and rationality. I’ve learned that most of what we think we know is wrong, and it takes critical thinking skills to bridge the gap between perception and reality. A friend who had experience with climate models suggested I look into climate science, so I started reading with an open mind. I started with Warren Meyer’s documentary, Catastrophe Denied, and soon started buying books and reading them. Bob Tisdale’s book on climate models was really impressive. After a few months, it was clear that the emperor has no clothes and we are dedicating huge resources to fighting a war that doesn’t exist. Reminds me of Colin Powell talking to the UN about the power of “weapons of mass destruction.”

One thing that threw me was the mainstream skeptic community - people like Michael Shirmer at Skeptic.com, who wrote “former Vice President Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard.” Most of the mainstream skeptics, who regularly debunk misleading claims about everything from vaccinations to gun control, have bought the alarmist warming position hook, line, and sinker. They all bow to the IPCC as the final word on the topic. But then I read Donna LaFramboise’s book on the IPCC, and that got me upset. That’s when I decided I wanted to write something for liberals to understand the science and the deception.

EFN-USA: You wrote that you pitched your piece to dozens of publications, and none would publish it.

David Siegel: I pitched it to everyone. I’ve written six nonfiction books, four of which were international bestsellers. I have pretty strong credentials as a page 2

writer. I was hoping The Atlantic would take it, but they never even returned my emails, and I have relationships there (not any more, I guess).

Then an old friend who knows many editors tried to get his network to talk to me, and they wouldn’t. I approached many editors by email, and no one even returned my query message. I know how this game works, and yet not a single publisher would even talk about it. I was surprised that Slate.com people didn’t want to talk to me - they are more balanced than most, but even they didn’t return my messages.

EFN-USA: What have you learned since you launched it?

David Siegel: I have a single goal in writing and publishing my essay, and that’s to get people to think about the issue, look at the evidence, and decide for themselves. Now that over 45,000 people have seen and 7,000 people have read it, I really wasn’t that surprised to learn that it didn’t work. It’s well known that giving people the facts about topics that don’t align with their political stance doesn’t change them. People take one look at my essay, decide whether it confirms or goes against their political beliefs, then they react with their standard pre-scripted response. I have received dozens of anti-warming manifestos from Tea Party Republicans who think I should be interviewed by Rush Limbaugh, and I have had very standard rebuttals from Democrats who say I have lost it and “gone off the deep end.” So far, four old friends have decided not to talk to me any more - they believe I am now the enemy.

One group, however, stands out, and that is engineers, especially retired engineers. I have received many messages from engineers who are simply curious and want to understand the science. They are willing to look at the facts. Many have said they have made their own journey and come to the same conclusions. Some of them used to work at NASA. Some have offered to help me in my mission, because they haven’t been able to convince anyone of what took them years to learn.

EFN-USA: Well, a lot of our audience members are engineers. What would you ask of them?

David Siegel: First, I think they are already doing it - educating themselves, learning what works and what doesn’t, and telling people what they have learned. It’s clear that wind energy simply doesn’t add up in 99% of cases.

Solar should be part of the solution, but the only way we’ll get rid of the

page 3

smog and smoke is through next-generation nuclear power. This is the only conclusion you can come to if you really study the whole situation.

Now, what we need is to turn people away from misguided, Seventies thinking about nuclear to today’s smart nuclear development programs.

And that’s where I hope my essay will play a role - to help change the mindset, so people are less attached to “green energy,” less focused on decarbonization, and ready to think about a new era of nuclear power. We all know how important that is. I ask your readers to help get the message out to as many people as we can. Here are some suggestions: ● Reach out to your network. Contact people you know and send them to the efn-usa.org web site and to my essay, www.climatecurious.com.

Reach out to journalists. Journalists are always in a hurry. They don’t have time to consider the evidence, they just want a story (any story).

Tell journalists you know that over 7,000 people have actually read my essay and suggest they come see what the fuss is about. ● Write letters to the editors of publications they read. Write a short letter saying you read my essay and think people should decide for themselves. ● Reach out to bloggers. Bloggers can be very influential. Even a local blogger’s story can get picked up by a larger organization. Ask anyone you know who’s involved in social media to share the link to this web site and to my essay.

EFN-USA: What further remarks do you have?

David Siegel: It’s not easy. Almost all of the research and publication money is aligned with the IPCC message. No one is neutral, because no one wants to be seen as supporting a “denier” cause. But engineers know that you have to see and learn for yourself. Maybe if we get more and more engineers on board, we’ll reach some influential people and our movement will grow. For the sake of the planet, I hope so.

EFN-USA: Thank you for writing your report: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled and taking time for this interview. It will be posted on the website: efn-usa.org.

page 4

Torres del Paine, Chile Photo credit: Mauricio Lorca

page 5