The bottom line:
(1) the long-run trend of warming since the late 19th century is real, but climate science seems to be in its infancy and much is not properly understood;I am afraid this whole business reminds me of neoclassical economics. Neoclassical economics is our mainstream economic orthodoxy but the emperor is naked.
(2) the IPCC’s climate models that were used to predict the rise in global temperatures (CMIP-5 being the model used in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report of 2013) have been revealed to be wrong in their predictions;
(3) there has been either a flattening out of global temperatures or a deceleration in the rate of warming from about 2000 to 2014, as can be seen in the data here;
(4) some think the changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) explain this pause, and some think even other factors are also cooling the planet. More radical critics suggest that there could be a much larger natural contribution to, and cause of, the long-run warming trend in addition to man-made greenhouse gases, and current climate models are very badly flawed;
(5) but even if the cooling effect of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has ended and an acceleration in global temperatures has resumed, it appears that the IPCC’s climate models are still wrong in their predictions, and governments are trying to formulate policies on the basis of inaccurate models.
The neoclassical models are abysmal garbage, and our governments design policies that turn out to be catastrophic precisely because they are using abysmal garbage for models.
I would like to think our climate science is much better than neoclassical economics, but in the end I haven’t the necessary background knowledge. If climate models are badly flawed, then it follows that government policies designed from those incorrect models may be badly flawed too.