Open letter to Dr. John P. Holdren (part 1)

Dear Dr. Holdren:
You just published letter provides an opening for dialogue. First you give us a “natural history” of the climate change skeptic – he will change his message over time to a fall back position, until it’s too late. It’s curious that Freeman Dyson, one of the worlds’ greatest mathematical physicists, recently wrote about the majority of scientists who believe fervently that global warming as a grave danger: “The majority responds to the minority with open contempt. In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.”
Of the skeptics you write, “…they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed…” and “…how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.”
Again, Freeman Dyson seems to answer for the skeptics in his recent open letter to the UN Secretary General (with 99 other prominent scientists) when he states "...there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling." So to summarize your first concern about the alternative culprit for the disruption: normal millennial climate cycling perhaps. I’m not a specialist like you but data from ice cores and tree rings and human recorded history all support this position.
About how modern science can be wrong about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow…Well, the computer models based on everything climate science knows about have been terrible at predicting anything. From recent Senate testimony delivered by Dr. Spencer: “Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” So, in response to your second concern for skeptics: it happens all the time. Science gets it wrong a lot of the time. Theories are revised when new evidence comes on board.
You state that “greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities.” I remember hearing often in my science classes, correlation doesn’t mean causation. By the way, why did half the warming in the last century occur before the big CO2 build-up? Why did the Earth have fluctuations in temperature and CO2 concentrations before humans? Why does Dr. Dyson think that environmentalism is a religion when he states: “The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism…” Can scientists with “religious views” be objective?
Please advise.
Matt Kaul