Could someone, skeptic or otherwise explain few points to me? 1- why not present your data for an article in Science or Scientific American to spread the word among scientists and torpedo the alarmists. 2- can you trace just how the notion of human caused climate changes insinuated itself into the scientific community. Why would they falsify data? Only explanation I have heard posited is that they don't want to buck the consensus and lose fellowships or something, pretty weak tea. 3- I assume that energy companies have financed doubt due to their economic interests, but oil company websites seem to acknowledge the phenomenon, and talk about the changes they are enacting.
But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.
The data for low climate sensitivity to CO2 has been Published, most recently Lewis Curry 2018,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates;
a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K).
But a more complete answer to your question, would first involve an understanding of what the consensus of
scientist are in agreement about. I contend the consensus is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that will cause some
warming if we double the level.
When Scientist look at the way the climate has reacted to the CO2 increases of the past (observational data),
they find the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 to be in the low end of the IPCC's range.
You ask what is the downside, I say plenty! Humanity has several real problems that we need to address to move into the future.
By not identifying the correct problems, we waste precious resources, on irrelevant problems.
The two real problems are energy and fresh water, but the right supply of energy can solve both.
Consider this, Our planet does not have enough stored hydrocarbon energy to allow the current population
to live a first world lifestyle for more than a few decades.
There is more than enough solar energy hitting the surface of the earth to have a sustainable future for everyone,
but the low duty cycle of that energy makes it more like a second or third world supply.
(the electricity is on sometime, but no guarantees.)
If we want to utilize solar power, we need a way to store and accumulate, in a usable form.
In research, many times, it helps to see how nature does a task, and try to mimic that process.
For storing energy, nature mostly uses hydrocarbons, and sugars, (which are hydrocarbons with some oxygen bonds).
The Navy, Audi Sunfire, and a few others have publicly been working in this area.
Green Syngas - Sunfire
U.S. Navy Wants to Fuel Ships Using Seawater - D-brief