Debates about climate change always have been clouded (wordplay intended) by two key facts: (1) The discussion is dominated by government agencies and by persons and entities soaked in government money, and (2) their incentives are to promote stormy scenarios that (supposedly) justify even more government control.
For example, a lot of the high pressure blast on the subject (and some would say “hysteria”) blows out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is not only funded by governments, but is, in turn, sheltered by the UN, an entity consisting of governments.
An alternative to IPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a collection of distinguished scientists whose conclusions differ markedly from the views of their governmental rivals. The NIPCC has issued a new report. It finds that, not surprisingly, global temperatures have changed over time, but that
* There has been no warming for the last 15 years despite an increase in atmospheric CO2,
* the past shows that warming tends to precede CO2 buildups, not follow them,
* by historical and pre-historical standards, the present atmosphere is actually “starved” of CO2,
* if the planet does experience a rise in CO2 levels, with or without some warming, this would be a sunny, not a dismal, thing for the environment.
The findings are much more detailed that that. Get a summary of the full tsunami of evidence here.
P.S.: The summary doesn’t say so, but even if the best forecast is for significant warming, the best response would be freedom, not regulation. History shows that the wealth and flexibility of free economies afford far more ability to respond to changed conditions than command-and-control “solutions.” Wealthy people can afford ecological response; impoverished people cannot.