The Major Problems with the Climate Alarmist Narrative

Over the last seven years I have outlined a number of serious problems with the warmist/climate alarmist narrative, including the following:

• (1) The alleged “problem” that the alarmists/warmists are trying to solve is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)–the hypothesis that catastrophic increases in global temperatures will be caused by expanded or even continued human use of fossil fuels. Since the hypothesis fails the scientific method test, it should be discarded or revised; it is a failed hypothesis, nothing more. In recent years alarmists have tried to argue that there is another associated problem–more extreme weather–with the same alleged cause but have not offered any objective evidence for this.
• (2) Minor, gradual increases in atmospheric CO₂ levels yield mainly benefits such as more rapid plant growth and fewer deaths from cold; it is only catastrophic increases that people should fear.
• (3) There is currently no objective basis to fear that CAGW will occur; the main evidence advanced for CAGW is computer models built by alarmists that have consistently proved to be much too “warm” in their predictions. What increases there have been are clearly minor and gradual and appear to be due to natural phenomena such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
• (4) The “solution” offered, to substitute non-hydro “renewable” energy sources (NHRES) for fossil fuel sources, increases electricity costs roughly in proportion to the installed capacity of NHRES per capita based on European experience, is hurting mainly poor people throughout the world, greatly decreases electric reliability, and if pushed to its extreme (full substitution) would be infinitely expensive except under unusual circumstances. So it is not really a practical or feasible “solution” to the alleged “problem.”
• (5) The method used to implement the alleged “solution” (government coercion through carbon taxes or regulations and subsidies) has proved a failure wherever it has been tried and inferior in terms of reducing CO₂ emissions to leaving the energy use decisions to the market including the option of using fracking to reduce the cost of natural gas. This has been very effective in reducing CO₂ emissions in the US.

So the “Problem” is Highly Unlikely and the “Solution” Will Mainly Waste Money at the Expense of Poor People

In summary, the alarmist climate science is wrong, there is no evidence that the “problem” is likely to occur, the “solution” will hurt mainly the poor and accomplish little or nothing, and the goal (reduced CO₂ emissions) is best achieved by government doing nothing except encouraging private markets to make energy use decisions. So the “answer” is to do nothing other than watchful waiting. Pursuing the USEPA “Clean Power Plan” and the Paris agreement/treaty will accomplish nothing except burdening electric ratepayers and taxpayers, particularly poor ones, with skyrocketing electric rates, and making electricity less reliable.

These conclusions are based on very extensive documentation. Except where links are included above to more recent sources, the major source is my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, which in turn has very extensive documentation for these conclusions.