I think this says it all really.

Effects and outcomes of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method

Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

We summarize evidence showing that the global warming alarm movement has more of the character of a political movement than that of a scientific controversy. We then make forecasts of the effects and outcomes of this movement using a structured analysis of analogous situations—a method that has been shown to produce accurate forecasts for conflict situations. This paper summarizes the current status of this "structured analogies project." We searched the literature and asked diverse experts to identify phenomena that could be characterized as alarms warning of future disasters that were endorsed by scientists, politicians, and the media, and that were accompanied by calls for strong action. The search yielded 71 possible analogies. We examined objective accounts to screen the possible analogies and found that 26 met all criteria. We coded each for forecasting procedures used, the accuracy of the forecasts, the types of actions called for, and the effects of actions implemented. Our preliminary findings are that analogous alarms were presented as "scientific," but none were based on scientific forecasting procedures. Every alarming forecast proved to be false; the predicted adverse effects either did not occur or were minor. Costly government policies remained in place long after the predicted disasters failed to materialize. The government policies failed to prevent ill effects. The findings appear to be insensitive to which analogies are included. The structured analogies approach suggests that the current global warming alarm is simply the latest example of a common social phenomenon: an alarm based on unscientific forecasts of a calamity. We conclude that the global warming alarm will fade, but not before much additional harm is done by governments and individuals making inferior decisions on the basis of unscientific forecasts.

Kenny, where is your basis for criticism of Herbert’s perfectly correct summary of the situation?

There is no science to show that human emissions have other than a negligible effect on climate. Plenty of baseless assertions, Kenny, but no science.

This is not surprising when the contribution by human emissions to CO2 is 3% of the total of the natural CO2 cycle. The natural variation is 10% so it is no wonder that 3% has no noticeable effect.

Now that you have been informed, Kenny, will you direct your attention to the facts, and stop maligning the people who supply us with power, and incidentally produce a beneficial trace gas which is essential to all life on earth.

Carbon Dioxide is not pollution.