In this article, I question whether what is called “climate change” is consistent with science and social science. The effectiveness of mathematical and computer models has been questioned in a number of fields, including physics and economics. The two issues are (I) do we even have a clear problem definition, and (II) are the methods consistent with the analyses done in other fields.
I. Problem Definition
First we must define the problem. Then we should include relevant facts, but exclude unrelated issues, since they might cause confusion. Finally we need to produce a workable solution, while acknowledging any disadvantages it may entail.
Accordingly, the issues are whether carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, by trapping heat in the atmosphere, are substantively increasing temperatures above the natural rate, what the magnitude of the effect is, is it bad, and are the proposed solutions viable.
The issue is not whether CO2 itself is increasing or the temperature is increasing. There must be a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature, it must be problematic and we must have a viable solution. If the relationship is weak, then the effort to change the energy system, the foundation of modern life and progress for developing nations, would not only be ineffectual—it would be a severe blow to human progress.
