Anthropogenic global warming is not per se a crisis or planetary emergency.

See Free Market Perspective on Pope Francis's Forthcoming Speech to Congress by Mark Lewis of CEI. Excerpt:

"What matters is how much warming there will be and with what impacts. Big, scary warming predictions come from climate models that increasingly overshoot observed warming.

The most comprehensive and accurate global temperature data come from satellite observing systems. In both the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) satellite records of the bulk atmosphere (troposphere), the warming trend over the 36 year, 7 month record is 0.11°C per decade, which translates into a 21^st century warming of 1.2°C.

That is well within the bounds (0.3°C-1.7°C) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) lowest warming projection (RCP2.6), which assumes a 70% reduction in cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2100 compared to baseline projections. In short, the satellite records show about the same warming rate that climate campaigners urge policymakers to achieve via draconian restrictions on carbon-based energy. Is this a great atmosphere, or what!

As to impacts, climate campaigners blame global warming for extreme weather events but there has been no trend in the strength or frequency of land-falling hurricanes globally since 1970.

In addition, as the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) acknowledges, “there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale,” and “there is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.”

More importantly, despite relying on climate models that run too hot, the IPCC tacitly rejects the climate trilogy of terror popularized by Al Gore and other climate activists. Specifically, AR5 concludes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.”

Here’s the big picture that is so often ignored in the global warming debate. Affordable, plentiful, reliable fossil fuels make the climate safer and the environment more livable. For example, since the 1920s, roughly 90% of all industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions entered the atmosphere and the world warmed by about 0.8°C. If fossil-fueled development were “unsustainable,” we would expect skyrocketing deaths and death rates related to drought, historically the most lethal form of extreme weather. Instead, drought-related deaths and death rates plummeted by a spectacular 99.8% and 99.9%, respectively. 

What made the decisive difference are technologies (mechanized agriculture, synthetic fertilizers, refrigeration, plastic packaging) and capabilities (motorized transport, modern communications, emergency relief programs) that depend on fossil fuels and the associated wealth-creating activities.

Francis exhorts governments to care for the planet as part of their duty to care for the poor. But the UN-sponsored climate treaty he supports poses an existential threat to the poor. In the COP 21 climate negotiations, the European Union and major environmental groups call for a 60% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions below 2010 levels by 2050. What sacrifices would the 60-by-50 target impose on developing countries, where the vast majority of emissions growth is projected to occur?

Institute for 21^st Century Energy scholar Steve Eule finds that even if industrial countries like the United States magically reduce their emissions to zero by 2050, the 60-by-50 target is unattainable unless developing countries cut their current CO2 emissions by 35%. If, less unrealistically, industrial countries reduce their emissions by 80%, developing countries would have to cut their current CO2 emissions almost in half – by 48%.

Note, an estimated 1.2 billion people in developing countries have no access to electricity and 2.3 billion don’t have access to reliable power, which limits capital investment and economic growth.

Nobody knows how developing countries can simultaneously eradicate energy squalor while reducing their consumption of fossil fuels by 35%-48%. Contrary to Francis, a “bold agreement” at the Paris climate conference would most likely harm rather than help the poor."