Out of support for my friend, Pandu Wisaksono, I repost her words on this important topic.

I've also found this documentary to be very persuasive. It turned me from a climate change denier to someone who recognizes a problem but also questions how to approach solving it. Highly, highly recommended:

https://archive.org/details/CoolIt

Please note: Neither I nor Pandu are denying anthropomorphic climate change. This is about the degree to which climate change is occurring, who or what is causing it, and the best approach for fixing the problem. All of which should be up for legitimate scientific debate.

Preamble over, what follows are Pandu's words:

"I'm an Environmental Engineering graduate, intake class of 2003, Institut Teknologi Bandung.

I've gotten extremely bored about the alarmism regarding climate change and think Trump's take on climate change is based on facts and rationality, not politics.

This is what we need: To look at all views on climate change and do not demean the actual scientists who think that (a) it's anthropogenic but not harmful, (b) it's harmful but not anthropogenic, or (c) it's neither anthropogenic nor harmful.

I myself subscribe to (a).

From my college days 10 years ago, the global warming debate has always been exactly that: a debate. There are scientists that believe that anthropogenic climate change would lead to catastrophic effects, there are scientists who believe otherwise. I remember one of my textbooks on Environmental Statistics from a decade ago clearly calling into question the claims about global warming from a statistical perspective. This textbook was not fringe science -- it was discussed in class, debated, reported on. (I'll post the title of that book here once I remember it.)

Unfortunately, most of the media coverage regarding global warming fail to take into account non-alarmist opinions.

The media claims there is already a scientific consensus, that all scientists believe the narrative that anthropogenic global warming is happening and will lead to catastrophe.

There was no consensus a decade ago and there is no consensus now. Actually there is *less* of a consensus now since many of the alarmist warnings have failed to materialize.

Trump wants to utilize the EPA to focus on creating cleaner coal technologies. The plan on whitehouse.gov at this very moment, under Energy.

My personal and professional opinion: This is a much better use of the EPA than catering to a bloc of climate alarmists.

It seems to me that Trump understands that the cost issue with coal is not with the extraction -- it's with the scrubbing. It's with the cost of technologies to use coal cleanly. The lack of focus of the previous administration to utilize coal has made clean coal expensive. This renewed focus in *both* clean air and coal would drive down the costs of clean energy -- Trump is forcing the EPA to work hand-in-hand with the energy industry instead of obstructing it." -Pandu Wisaksono

Pandu's link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#46d7a333171b