The arguments made by NOAA, UN, EPA and so forth are dependent on a hypothesis which has been falsified many times over by real world data. Proponents of the hypothesis created many computer models during three decades, but so far, none of these models has been able to accurately predict global temperatures retrospectively or prospectively. A computer model is only a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be tested against real world data. The hypothesis predicted that increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would trigger catastrophic warming of the planet. This has not happened.
Many billions of dollars have been spent attempting to validate this hypothesis over the last 30 years. However, much to the consternation of the proponents, the planet has not warmed and the models have been unable to predict even the general direction of global temperature. The actual measured temperature trend has been statistically flat for more than 15 years and during that the same period the trend of CO2 concentration has continued to increase in its long term trend which began before the industrial revolution, that is before humans began using coal, oil and gas. Climate model after model, more than 70, have continued to predict warming, some continue to predict catastrophic warming, but the global temperature trend, as measured by the most accurate means possible (satellites), has remained trendless, statistically flat.
Weather and climate changes almost continuously locally and globally, but global climate and temperature are averages computed across years and across geography. Despite temperature swings as much as 50 degrees in one day in some locations, the average temperature for planet has varied considerably less than 1 degree.
In addition, examinations of historical data have revealed that when global temperatures trends have increased, this increase occurred prior to increasing trends in CO2 concentration. An effect cannot occur prior to a cause, so CO2 cannot be a significant cause or trigger for warming trends. More likely trends of increasing CO2 are an effect of planetary warming, especially oceanic warming. Humans contribute only minor CO2 compared to the oceans.
Other studies revealed that CO2 concentrations have historically been several times higher than today’s trace concentration of CO2 and during these elevated periods there was abundant life, e.g. the Jurassic period of dinosaurs and nearly planet-wide jungle. Many other real life scientific studies with growing various flora and fauna have shown that higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, even several times higher, result in enhanced growth. These were not computer models but growing of real plants and animals.
Other studies revealed several periods (e.g. Roman, Middle Ages) when temperatures were warmer than the warmest of modern temperatures and during those warm periods life was abundant, while in contrast cold periods such as the Little Ice Age resulted in high death rates. In other words, even if the planet were warming, the result would likely be good for living things, not catastrophically bad.
Finally, it has been revealed that many of the studies published by global warming proponents have been faked with manipulated data, and those global warming proponents have made many attempts to ostracize, black list, defame and defund scientists and others who were skeptical of their warmist claims.
In summary, the hypothesis espoused by a relatively small group of climate scientists has failed miserably, although many no doubt will continue to fight for their belief in order to keep their jobs, their grants, and travel benefits. But, multiple countries have withdrawn support for the UN climate change regime and have begun reversing regulations and taxes on carbon.
Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor in environmental studies and politics in science concluded recently, after reading drafts of the UN climate report AR5 chapter 2, “Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate.” Geologist Don Easterbrook states: “When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the [UN] IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.”