Climate alarmism is just bad science: there is no cohesive, consistent evidentiary support of the human-caused global warming hypothesis.
And I did not read beyond this sentence, since the author clearly understands so little about the subject he is writing about.
In science, you have a hypothesis and a null hypothesis. You cannot ever have a hypothesis without an opposing null hypothesis. Thus, if the hypothesis is that there is human-caused global warming due to carbon dioxide, you must be able to define a set of testable hypotheses and their corresponding null hypotheses. For example, you would hypothesize that global temperature is a direct function of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. The null hypothesis would be that carbon dioxide has negligible, if any, effect on global temperature. As far as I can tell, no one has ever experimentally demonstrated either the hypothesis or its null.
Alarmism, of course, is necessary to advance political goals and personal enrichment opportunities, otherwise the whole "scientific" issue would not exist. The "cap-and-trade" system and "green loans" to Solyndra, A123 and other bankrupt "green" companies, as well as "carbon credits" (which are currently the only source of profitability at companies like Tesla) can only be accomplished through corrupt government vehicles based on nakedly fraudulent "science" and alarmism.
How else can they justify and sell something like EPA's upcoming draconian Clean Power Plan if not for "the sky is falling" tactics?
Yet if anybody looks into the supposed "benefits" of such plan, which can only be accomplished at great present and future cost to "regular folks" they will find this (from Carbon Dioxide Reduction Policies Are Destructive And Immoral - IBD, by Roger Bezdek and Paul Driessen, 2015 December 04):
What's being discussed in Paris would have similarly minimal effects. But it would let unelected, unaccountable activists and bureaucrats decide which industries, companies, workers and families win the Climate Hustle game — and which ones lose. ..... < snip > ..... Earth's climate changes regularly, but recent trends and events are in line with historic experience, and many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures. Fossil fuels facilitated successive industrial revolutions and enabled billions to live better than royalty did a century ago, average incomes to increase elevenfold, and average global life expectancy to climb from less than 30 in 1870 to 71 today. Carbon and hydrocarbon energy still provide 81% of world energy, and support $70 trillion per year in world GDP. They will supply 75%-80% of global energy for decades to come, studies by the Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency and others forecast. More than 2,400 coal-fired power plants are under construction or planned around the world. China and India will not consider reducing GHG emissions until 2030. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb, greening the planet and spurring faster crop, forest and grassland growth. ..... < snip > ..... Because there is a strong causal relationship between GDP and fossil energy consumption, eliminating that much energy would reduce 2050 world per capita GDP to less than what Americans "enjoyed" in 1830! Modern technologies would still exist, but few would be able to afford them. < snip > ..... The EPA's own analyses suggest that its fully implemented Clean Power Plan would bring an undetectable, irrelevant reduction of perhaps 0.05°F in average global temperatures 85 years from now — assuming that carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change.
No wonder that in every poll the "climate change" is at or near the bottom of the list of issues concerning regular people, while it's at the top of the list and requiring "immediate action" among politicians.