Let me be quite frank. When it comes to global warming and climate change, I do not believe any of it is true. I believe the hypothesis is false: there is no heating of the planet taking place. Consequently, I do not believe any actions need to be taken to limit the use of carbon-based fuels.

So let me bring you to this article which begins from the premise that climate change is a fact and that something must be done: Why Environmentalists Pose a Bigger Obstacle to Effective Climate Policy than Denialists. But he says this as well.

It is easy to gloss over one inconvenient fact: fossil fuels have been fantastic engines of progress for humanity, by providing access to cheap, abundant, reliable, and (relatively) safe energy. They have freed us from back-breaking labor, tripled our life expectancy, and allowed one country after another to escape from miserable poverty. Fossil fuel companies have become so powerful precisely because, at their core, they offer an extremely desirable product from which all of us benefit, both in direct and visible forms (gasoline, diesel, natural gas) and in myriad indirect forms (cement, plastics, steel, glass). Indeed, if you look around your living room, you would be hard-pressed to find any object that did not somehow involve the use of fossil fuels (if only because it will almost certainly have been hauled to you by a diesel-powered machine).

Despite what many climate activists profess, we don’t yet have clean and affordable solutions for cement and steel production, fertilizer production for agriculture, or aviation. In the absence of such clean alternatives, forgoing the use of fossil fuels will inevitably entail painful sacrifices and difficult questions about how to share the burden of emission reductions.

Thus, in spite of all of the massive problems and costs of ridding ourselves of carbon-based fuels, the writer thinks we must nevertheless grasp the climate-change nettle because there really is a problem that demands action.

It all seems so straightforward. But if you don’t believe that, if all the supposed evidence of climate change seems like hysterical nonsense, then to do as these people suggest is insane. It will return us to living standards that existed more than a century ago since there are no substitutes for the fossil fuels we have come to depend on.

But he does have a solution – nuclear energy which comes with its own environmentalist contra-agenda. Here is the dilemma as he sees it.

More generally, the co-opting of climate science to launch attacks on capitalism, consumerist culture, neoliberalism, and a host of other left-wing bugbears having little or nothing to do with climate change, has fueled the ideological polarization around the issue. Though the science of climate change transcends all ideology, the same cannot be said of mainstream climate activism. Ironically, the claim that climate and capitalism (or climate and economic growth) are incompatible is one with which the denialists wholeheartedly agree: the only difference being that they want to ditch climate policy rather than capitalism. Such ideological hijacking made it easier for the right-wing denialists to dismiss the whole climate story as yet another excuse from the hippies to impose Big Government and take away their SUVs.

He, however, wishes to ditch capitalism rather than climate policy. He’s also anti-capitalist, but wants to introduce nuclear energy to run our economies.

Ironically, the claim that climate and capitalism (or climate and economic growth) are incompatible is one with which the denialists wholeheartedly agree: the only difference being that they want to ditch climate policy rather than capitalism. Such ideological hijacking made it easier for the right-wing denialists to dismiss the whole climate story as yet another excuse from the hippies to impose Big Government and take away their SUVs.

Just be like China,a communist state whose economy is driven by nuclear energy.

China plans to build 150 new nuclear reactors, which promises to collectively avert more CO2 emissions than half of the current total annual emissions of the European Union.

A delusional nutter, but in his own eyes a pragmatic delusional nutter.