I worked with computer models for most of my career in engineering. I don’t believe the current models being used to set government policies on energy are correct since the projections are wrong. So far, only the projections generated by Russian scientists are even close to what has been happening with respect to global temperatures and I suspect that was just a lucky guess. According to Alex Epstein, “there needs to be a commitment to scientific thinking, a concern for environmental quality, a commitment to cost/benefit analysis, and an overall goal of promoting human flourishing.” As Americans, we must think logically about energy in a pro-human way, not a pro-climate way. I agree with Alex.
What the climate alarmists and fossil fuel opponents want is to turn it into a debate over whether we have an impact on climate. Their framework is that our goal should be to minimize our impact on nature and so the ideal is to have no impact on climate. This is bogus. Unless you live in the very limited areas of the planet that are climate temperate, then climate is the enemy. And, depending upon where you live, climate change can be either good or bad.
So, if you frame things from a human perspective, then it's really a debate on what we should do about energy. The impact on climate is part of how we evaluate fossil fuels, which is part of deciding what to do about energy.
If our goal is to maximize human flourishing, then our actual ideal is not protecting the climate, but making sure we’re completely protected from climate. That's what matters to human beings.
And the number one thing for climate protection world-wide is industrialization--which requires a lot of cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.