Beyond arguments for warming themselves, warming advocates usually add a laundry list of horrible terrible things that will occur because of this. I think this is the most important thing to analyze. With out impacts, there is no logical justification for climate regulations or legislation-and naturally if they are present this will be used as justification even if those policies actually cause more damage than they avert.
So I’ve looked into several of the more common claims. Particularly relevant for the EPA regs are claims which affect the public health and welfare of the people of the United States. Among these are claims that heat related mortality will increase-this is not borne out in the data, and beyond that neglects the fact that a large reduction in cold related mortality could also occur due to strong (and it is generally stronger than summer) winter warming. Claims of more flooding aren’t supported by the data either, which show changes mostly in the minimum to median streamflow, not flood flows,and no significant change in normalized flood damages. This supports assertions that the tendency for more rain has mainly beneficial effects, rather than negative as activists often claim. The opposite claim of increasing drought neither comports with the widespread trends toward more water available nor drought trends themselves. Warming has not induced pollution problems, since air quality continues to improve. And it will in the future, too. Hurricanes are not increasing in the frequency with which they hit the US nor in their normalized damages. Major tornadoes are not more frequent. Studies don’t support claims of accelerating sea level rise and the rates so far observed (less than a foot a century) related to are swamped by subsidence and uplift.
Can anyone think of any catastrophes that I haven’t mentioned?