New Study Challenges Climate Crisis Narrative

In a recently published paper in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, petrophysicist Andy May and science journalist Marcel Crok from the Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) argue against the existence of a climate crisis. Their research challenges key assertions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Sixth Assessment Report, specifically the human-induced causes of climate change and the severity of its impacts.
May and Crok claim that current climate models overestimate temperature increases and that other factors, such as atmospheric aerosols, ozone changes, and solar activity, could account for observed temperature variations. They also highlight the significant role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) in temperature changes, suggesting that natural factors might play a larger role than acknowledged by the IPCC.
The authors argue that extreme weather events and their associated damages have not significantly worsened over time. They note that the frequency and severity of events like hurricanes, floods, and droughts have remained stable or declined, and that most damage from extreme weather is due to natural variability rather than human influence.
Furthermore, May and Crok emphasize the benefits of climate change and increased CO2, which they argue have been overlooked in mainstream climate discourse. They call for a balanced analysis that considers both the positive and negative impacts of climate change.
Their findings challenge the notion that human activities are the primary drivers of climate change and question the credibility of predictions of worsening weather extremes. They also highlight a decline in deaths from extreme weather events, despite a significant increase in global population.