# Re-evaluating the Concern of Climate Change

- Link: https://climatescience.press/?p=424622
- Published: 2026-02-04T12:53:01-07:00
- Author: uwe.roland.gross

![A group of scientists and concerned citizens holding signs about climate change,
standing in two contrasting environments: one with a glacier and the other with 
flowers. They express urgency about global warming, showcasing messages like '97%
Scientific Consensus' and 'Human Impact.' A polar bear is also present amidst the
protesters.](https://i0.wp.com/climatescience.press/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/0-
climate-consensus.jpg?resize=687%2C1024&ssl=1)

From [Watts Up With That?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/02/re-evaluating-the-concern-of-climate-change/)

By [Andy May](https://wattsupwiththat.com/author/andymay2014_69488455_3713736997/)

![Text on a blue background discussing the validity of opinions and thoughts in 
relation to observations and facts.](https://i0.wp.com/climatescience.press/wp-content/
uploads/2026/02/0Screenshot-2026-02-04-121324.png?resize=840%2C238&ssl=1)

I’ve just been made aware of a paper critical of the “consensus” view that man-made
climate change is dangerous. It is by Ashutosh Sharma, Vinit Vithalrai Shenvi, and
Mohit Sain of the MS Ramaiah Institute of Technology in India (or MSRIT) (Sharma
et al., 2024). It was published just two months before “[Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajes.12579),”
by Marcel Crok and myself (May & Crok, 2024) and makes similar points, at least 
until we reach the paper’s conclusions. The paper argues that: “climate change policies
impose unwarranted economic strains on nations and impede technological advancement.”

Unfortunately, like many papers, after it completely destroys the whole idea of 
dangerous climate change it turns around and claims the consensus is correct after
all:

> “The consequences of climate change are already evident in rising temperatures,
> melting ice caps, and extreme weather events, and if left unchecked, these effects
> will become increasingly severe in the future. It is crucial for policymakers,
> businesses, and individuals to acknowledge the reality of climate change and take
> proactive measures to mitigate its effects.”

I have seen this sort of nonsense in too many papers to count. First, they show 
there is no evidence that man-made climate change is unusual or dangerous, and then
they say that future will be different, trust me. The conclusions in May and Crok
are more sensible:

> “The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist and likely cannot be
> built in a short time. Current realistic estimates of future energy use suggest
> that fossil fuels will still supply half our energy in 2050 and beyond. Yet no
> credible evidence exists that this is a problem or will become a problem. Recent
> research into climate change has suggested that nature plays some role, and certainly
> greenhouse gas emissions may play some role as well. What we do not know is how
> much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes
> to our economy are justified until we can figure this out.”

## Key points made by Sharma et al.:

 1.  Climate change is not solely driven by anthropogenic factors. The main factor 
     emphasized by the consensus is that increasing CO_(2) emissions from burning fossil
     fuels will somehow create problems for mankind. While some impact from burning
     fossil fuels on climate is expected, it is likely minor and not dangerous (Sharma
     et al., 2024) and (May & Crok, 2024).
 2.  The research supporting dangerous anthropogenic climate change is based upon manipulated
     data, biased methodologies, and political agendas.
 3.  Renewable sources of electricity require fossil fuel backup and cannot provide
     a consistent and reliable source of power.
 4.  Government subsidies have driven the growth of renewables and distorted the energy
     market.
 5.  Government spending on renewables has diverted spending from education, health
     care, and infrastructure, areas that should take priority.
 6.  Trends in mid-late Holocene climate change, particularly the transition from [Holocene Climatic Optimum to the Little Ice Age ](https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2024/03/15/the-holocene-climatic-optimum-and-the-pre-industrial/)
     challenge assumptions that recent changes are due to human activities or extreme
     in a proper historical context. This is also a point made by May and Crok.
 7.  The Holocene period (~9700BC to the present) is a brief warm interlude in a [three-million-year ice age](https://www.britannica.com/science/Pleistocene-Epoch).
     As this paper and May and Crok point out the warmest period in the Holocene, was
     not the Modern Warm Period (1850 to the present), but [6000 years ago](https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2024/03/15/the-holocene-climatic-optimum-and-the-pre-industrial/)
     in the Holocene Climatic Optimum. This casts considerable doubt on the man-made
     climate change hypothesis.
 8.  The dark side of environmental activism has had a significant effect on public
     perception of climate change, also see the discussion of this factor in May, [_Politics and Climate Change: A History_](https://www.amazon.com/POLITICS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-ANDY-MAY-ebook/dp/B08LJSBVBC/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Politics+and+Climate+Change+a+history+by+Andy+May&qid=1604056285&sr=8-1),
     2020.
 9.  They acknowledge that the increase in climate disaster costs in recent years is
     primarily due to increasing populations and affluence in vulnerable areas.
 10. The paper accepts the reduced uncertainty in climate sensitivity in AR6, as explained
     by (Sherwood et al., 2020), yet this new subjective Bayesian analysis technique
     for deriving climate sensitivity has been [successfully debunked](https://nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Lewis_Objectively-combining-climate-sensitivity-evidence_2022-Clim-Dyn-Detailed-Summary.pdf)
     by Nic Lewis (Lewis, 2023).

## Conclusions

It is an awful thing to read through a good paper that lays out a very good case
why there is nothing to worry about regarding man-made climate change and then watch
the authors do a complete U-turn in the conclusions and push the idea of _potentially_
dangerous climate change. The change from downplaying concern to emphasizing it 
is abrupt in this paper and unexpected.

But I’ve seen it many times before. Roger Pielke Jr.’s otherwise excellent book:
[_The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming_](https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3L329ALN2QMYI&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.H3MzinTpM8CBtgBYElCJdA.tLHnn7Y1p1UTZjMM1fcIZA5iHJNNqLZWmxBYWd-O7X8&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Climate+Fix%3A+What+Scientists+and+Politicians+Won%E2%80%99t+Tell+You+About+Global+Warming&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1769971675&sprefix=the+climate+fix+what+scientists+and+politicians+won+t+tell+you+about+global+warming+%2Caps%2C190&sr=8-1)
does the same thing;_ _I explain the discrepancy [here](https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/12/22/global-warming-and-extreme-weather/).
First Pielke completely destroys the argument that man-made global warming and climate
change are dangerous, then he states that “carbon dioxide matters a great deal.”
He never really explains why but states it anyway. Pielke is an excellent scientist
and a good writer but is just as susceptible to unsupported conjecture about the
supposed “dangers” of carbon dioxide emissions as most other scientists. Sigh.

Sharma et al. emphasize the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based decisions
and then immediately ignore all the fine evidence they present in the earlier part
of the paper that climate changes today are not unusual and are not dangerous. They
go on to immediately use unsupported conjecture to proclaim that climate change 
is dangerous and urgent action is needed. It is truly absurd how often this logical
error is found in otherwise good climate change papers.

The [IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf)(
IPCC, 2023) is another good example. The detail chapters review the data on extreme
weather and find no global increase attributable to human activities, yet in the
conclusions and in The [_Summary for Policymakers_](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf)
they focus on future projections and conjecture to imply the opposite of what the
data shows. Roger Pielke Jr. provides a very thorough critique of the _Synthesis
Report_ [here](https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/has-the-ipcc-outlived-its-usefulness).

Bottom line: Scientists should stick to the facts as we know them today, conjecture
and predictions are fine, as long as they are clearly labeled as such. We all are
susceptible to defending our ideas and conjectures, it isn’t just Sharma, et al.
However, logic and common sense tell us to stick with clear evidence. Reasonable
conjectures should be kept in mind but not acted upon until facts and observations
support them.

# Works Cited

IPCC. (2023). _AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023._ [https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647](https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647)

Lewis, N. (2023, May). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence. _Climate
Dynamics, 60_, 3139-3165. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x)

May, A. (2020c). _Politics and Climate Change: A History._ Springfield, Missouri:
American Freedom Publications. Retrieved from [https://www.amazon.com/POLITICS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-ANDY-MAY-ebook/dp/B08LJSBVBC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3POS1QGAQ2C2X&dchild=1&keywords=politics+and+climate+change+a+history+by+andy+may&qid=1609414686&sprefix=Politics+and+Climate%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-1](https://www.amazon.com/POLITICS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-ANDY-MAY-ebook/dp/B08LJSBVBC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3POS1QGAQ2C2X&dchild=1&keywords=politics+and+climate+change+a+history+by+andy+may&qid=1609414686&sprefix=Politics+and+Climate%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-1)

May, A., & Crok, M. (2024, May 29). Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not
problems. _American Journal of Economics and Sociology_, 1-15. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12579](https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12579)

Pielke Jr., R. (2010). _The Climate Fix, What Scientists and Politicians won’t tell
you about global warming._ New York, New York, USA: Basic Books. Retrieved from 
link: [http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/climate_fix/index.html](http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/climate_fix/index.html)

Sharma, A., Shenvi, V. V., & Sain, M. (2024). Reevaluating the Concern of Climate
Change. _International Journal of Environment and Climate Change , 14_(3). [https://doi.org/10.9734/IJECC/2024/v14i34056](https://doi.org/10.9734/IJECC/2024/v14i34056)

Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., J., P. M., Hargreaves,
C., . . . Knutti, R. (2020, July 22). An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity
Using Multiple Lines of Evidence. _Reviews of Geophysics, 58_. [https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678](https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678)

![A group of scientists and individuals holding signs related to climate change 
awareness, with a glacier and polar bear in the background.](https://i0.wp.com/climatescience.
press/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/0-climate-consensus-1.jpg?resize=687%2C1024&ssl
=1)

### Like this:

Like Loading…

### _Ähnliche Beiträge_