Comparative Energy Economics: Fossil Fuels vs. Green Energy

Modern climate models form the backbone of emissions forecasting, financial stress testing, and transition policy. Yet their structural limitations, ranging from overestimated sensitivity to poorly constrained cloud feedbacks and scenario inflation, compromise their predictive value and distort risk assessments. Model ensembles systematically overstate warming relative to satellite and radiosonde records, particularly in the tropical troposphere where the expected “CO₂ fingerprint” remains absent. The use of extreme scenarios such as RCP 8.5 as business-as-usual has inflated damage estimates and justified aggressive regulatory interventions without empirical grounding. Critical natural drivers (solar cycles, oceanic oscillations, and land-atmosphere coupling) are underrepresented or treated as static, leading to attribution errors and misallocated policy responses. Lifecycle emissions, storage costs, and integration burdens are routinely excluded from energy system modeling, masking the full economic cost of intermittency. The manufactured consensus around climate sensitivity and the political use of speculative science erode public trust and suppress scientific pluralism. Unpacking these failures reveals how flawed inputs cascade through carbon pricing models, ESG frameworks, and investment mandates, resulting in systemic risk mispricing at global scale.