I've been reluctant to start a new thread on this topic because I understand there's a lot of emotional/religious views that prevail, and most people seem unable to investigate the issue for themselves, and think for themselves.
If one is scientifically illiterate, as most politicians are and most members of the public are, it's understandable that most people will simply accept the media reports that there is a 97% consensus among climatologists that CO2 increases could cause catastrophic changes in climate.
Such people are not able to understand or appreciate the validity of alternative views. They probably are not even aware of the basic processes of the scientific method, consisting of attempts at falsification in order to prove a particular theory is at least provisionally correct.
If one can't set up experiments to falsify a particular theory, and one can't conduct repeated experiments in real time to confirm that the results are consistent with a particular theory, then the theory has to remain a hypothesis.
That our current warming phase is mostly caused by our CO2 enissions is a hypothesis, not proven.
The idea, if we reduce CO2 levels like using a control knob, then our climate will become benign and we don't have to worry about extreme weather events, is a total nonsense.
History has shown that extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, combined with gradual changes in average temperature, have destroyed many civilizations in the past. These were natural climate changes which had nothing to do with human caused CO2 emissions.
It is only sensible and rational to presume that such natural changes in climate will continue, irrespective of tiny increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, such as the current level of 0.04% as opposed to 0.028% in preindustrial times.
A society which spends trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2 levels from 0.04% to 0.028% whilst failing to protect its citizens from natural and expected climate disasters, is doomed for failure.
Our prosperity and well-being is dependent upon energy resources and the way we use them. The cheaper the energy resources and the more efficiently we use them, the more prosperous we become, on average.
However, having said that, the cost of the energy supplies should always take into consideration the external costs of real pollution, which includes the adverse effects on health of emissions such as Nitrogen Oxides, Mercury, Arsenic, lead, carbon monoxide etc.
Modern coal power plants, such as the ultra-supercritical variety, reduce such harmful emissions to virtually zero. But they don't reduce CO2 levels to near zero, so for that reason these modern coal plants are not as popular as they should be. They eliminate the known harmful chemical emissions, but they only partially reduce that clear, odourless, harmless to human health, CO2, which is essential for all life and has a beneficial effect on general crop growth, and which greens our planet.
At a more philosophical level, the problem with past civilizations which have been destroyed by climate change, is their failure to adapt to the changes. Such civilizations probably had little knowledge of previous climate changes, as we do. We have the advantage of being able to prepare for such changes in light of our greater knowledge of past events.
Trying to fix the problem by reducing atmospheric CO2 levels at great expense, which represent only 0.04% of the astmosphere, is plain foolish.
However, that does not mean I am opposed to the development of alternative energy supplies. Energy supplies, and the true cost of such energy, is fundamental to our prosperity and well-being.
Energy from the sun, through the development of efficient and durable PVP panels, is a great invention, equivalent to the development of the digital camera, in some respects.
I have a solar panel on my roof, and get a credit of double the normal electricity price when my panel feeds electricity back into the grid. I'm very pleased with that. When I go overseas on a photographic expedition, my house is generating electricity credits every day. My next 2 or 3 bills when I return are zero or significantly reduced.
But this benefit does not cause me to be biased. I'm still objective about the entire CO2 debacle.
