You almost make it sound like he is being blasphemous.
Not what I said or meant. The circumstances of his retracted study, his failed predictions, his affiliations with very political think-tanks and fossil fuel industry ties - as well as his very odd activities and statements (like accusing NASA of fraud without bothering to contact that organization) - pointing these out doesn’t make me any kind of zealot. I know contrarian experts like him tend to be the hero of tech people like Scott Adams, but IMO they are engaged in their own kind of hubris, thinking they are somehow qualified to pick and choose among experts of other fields when they decidedly are not. Anyone betting their savings (or their civilization) on him at Vegas would be a fool.
My favorite expression of this principle is by former CATO VP Jerry Taylor… who switched sides after being lied to by resident climate experts (since CATO, probably Patrick Michaels, among others):
In every other context where you have this degree of risk and uncertainty we rightly hedge, we rightly address the full range of possible outcomes. To not do so in the climate arena when you have this much at stake is incredible to me … Do we really want to go to Vegas and put all our money on one roulette wheel and say, ‘Well, that’s the most possible outcome?’