the government should not be involved in the energy market

Let me begin by summarizing the debate on global warming. Both government climate scientists and skeptics agree that warming is happening as a result of increased CO2 levels. Government scientists argue that as CO2 levels in the atmosphere double, you have a temperature increase of 1.1 degree's Celsius. Then there is a feedback amplification, wherein evaporation of water leads to more water vapor, which traps more heat and increases the temperature increase three fold. Skeptics agree about the direct effect of CO (1.1 degree C increase for each doubling of CO2 level) but argue there is in fact a dampening feedback, as more evaporation leads to more water vapor, more clouds, etc. So it should be a simple point of checking the data and seeing who is right, yes? Climate models put forth by those who argue that man made global warming is going to kill us, specifically predictions made by the IPCC in 1990, estimate a .75 degree increase in air temperature. What does the data tells? The models were wrong. The average rate of increase is below even the lowest trend predicted by their models. But that doesn't matter to global warming alarmists - if the data doesn't fit the theory, then so much for the data! Next we can look at Ocean temperatures. Ever since Argo came online in 2003 Ocean temperatures have been flat, again contradicting the models put forth by those who argue the sky is in fact falling. The data doesn't match the theories, but despite that we are supposed to savage our economy, make gigantic sacrifices, impose new taxes and regulations... all on what? A hunch? A bogus theory?https://mises.org... Clearly since man made global warming is not real, since the models created by climate scientists do not match with reality, there is no justification for intervention in the market based on this non event. There is no question that the government has done things which have benefited someone. Today the U.S. government spends over three trillion dollars a year; it would be impossible not to do some good with all of that money. This is not justification for intervention in the market. What right does the government have to use the threat of violence in order to get someone to spend money on something they don't want to spend their money on? This is the fallacy of omniscience, the idea that a government planner is in a better position to direct my resources than I am myself. On the market you are sure that businesses are satisfying consumer demands; if they are not they will surely go out of business. But what is to ensure the government is meeting consumer demands? There is nothing. When the state lends money to preferred businesses, this crowds out private lending (just as the state has no money of it's own, or no power of it's own, it has no credit of it's own). Everything the state has was taken, by force, from it's rightful owner. As far as pollution is concerned, there is definitely a cause for action here, but this is not intervention in the market but rather the protection thereof. The market represents voluntary interactions between people. A polluter is not acting on the market but in fact invading another's property and should be stopped. The polluter is not a market participant (in this instance, of course they are no doubt when they are putting their products to market), no more than a thief breaking into your home is participating in a market of any sort. I agree that lead is a dangerous chemical and has no place in gasoline - again it's not intervention in the market to stop pollution, as aggression against another's property or their person is not a market activity but the means of a thug (and the state). Should the government intervene in the energy market? Should they pick winners and losers? Should they subsidize 'green' energy or any other sort at the expense of other energy sources? No. The market and the price system which is derived from the interactions of producers and consumers is the best method for determing which energy sources are best suited to meet our energy needs. Subsidies are inherently political. What is the point of establishing an industry that can only exist through government support? Why should we subsidize the inefficient? If a form of energy is not economic without government support, then that is a clear indication that we should not yet be using that technology yet.