I mostly agree with David Siegel’s observations about climate change at RealClearPolitics. Here are his bullet points:
- Weather is not climate.
- Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous.
- There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works.
- New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
- CO2 has very little to do with it.
- There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.”
- Sea level will probably continue to rise — but not quickly, and not much.
- The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others.
- No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry.
- Global warming is real.
- Freak storms are going to cause a lot of damage.
- Most of the doom and gloom stories are predictions based on wrong assumptions.
- All the decarbonization we can do won’t change the temperature much.
- Geo-engineering only makes sense if you are a true believer.
- We have much bigger real problems to pay attention to.
- Alternative energy solutions should evolve naturally, without subsidies.
- We shouldn’t penalize developing nations who burn fossil fuels.
- Nuclear is the future power source.
from which he concludes we should do nothing whatever to “decarbonize” which is where he and I part company. For geopolitical and reasons of prudent stewardship of resources if for no other reasons we should end our subsidies for consuming fossil fuels. Those take thousands of different forms including the full court press for “infrastructure improvement” (defined as roads and bridges). There are other kinds of infrastructure projects that don’t subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. Tackle those first.