Conspiracy theorists love to use this silly argument, but really "global warming" would more correctly be called "global climate shift". The average temperature of the earth is indeed rising, the polar ice is melting and sea levels are rising, this is well documented and easily measured. The fact that the temperature in your tiny little corner of the earth has been lower recently says nothing to contradict this. It is only a data point that conveniently supports your existing confirmation bias.
The reverse is true. Too many people assume that the alarmists must be telling the truth.
Since the 2016 El Nino, global temperature has been falling. It is now almost back to the 2000-2014 plateau level.
The rapid warming in the 20thC started in 1910, which is over 30 years before the rapid increase in CO2 emissions started.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is well-established science, and the standard equations say that it
cannot do what the alarmists predict.
(The alarmist predictions are based on computer models which have no basis in classical physics.)
Sea levels are indeed rising, but at less than 3mm per year. Meanwhile, UK tides are a thousand times larger, twice daily.
Also, sea levels cannot rise more in one place than in another. If that seems to be the case, as in the oft-quoted maldives, then another mechanism is the cause of land flooding. Which indeed it is, tectonic plate movements being the cause.
Oceans are not acid, they are alkaline. A (tiny) reduction in alkalinity is not acidification.
Arctic ice - This year's minimum is now passed, and it ain't no record.
Polar bears are doing quite well, thank you.
That's the supposed problem. Now for the proposed fix:
Expenditure on renewables is about half a trillion a year. We've been installing them for over 20 years. All we have to show for that, is 2% of world energy, or 8% of electricity. Go figure how long achieving '100% renewables' will actually take at that rate, and how much it will cost. Now ask yourself, even if climate change is a serious problem, is this going to solve anything?
Eagles and other hawks are not doing so well. The Greens try to blame this on landowners setting poison, but it is equally possible that wind turbines are the cause. Everywhere with massed windfarms has very expensive electricity.
The Greens claim that energy storage will overcome the intermittency of renewables, but they might as well claim that flux capacitors will make time travel a cinch. (Neither have been invented yet, and there is no certainty that either is even possible to invent.)
The UK intends to spend over a billion on the smart meter rollout. Which has been made necessary because of the shortfall in the predicted windfarm output. Another crazy waste of money that could be put towards better solutions.
In fact, every time a limitation of renewables is pointed out, there's always an 'Ah, but..' excuse.
Even if you
still think climate change is a serious problem, would we not be better trying other low-carbon energy solutions? LFTR is one which suggests itself. The cost of doing so would be peanuts by comparison to the money being wasted on wind turbines. Say $25 billion for a test reactor. Compared to twenty times that a year on birdchoppers.