If climate change skeptics believe that the consensus in the scientific community is wrong, then what do they base their beliefs on?
Time to call in the dogs and empty the coffee pot on the campfire... this hunt is over, boys and girls.
A good thirty percent of all manmade carbon emissions during the industrial revolution have occurred since 1997, years in which there has been no detectable warming.
Satellite remote sensing shows more polar sea ice than at any time since 1979. The ice caps are not melting.
By every measure, the rate of sea-level rise has fallen far short of the rate predicted by AGW theorists.
The 2012 IPCC report and the 2013 NIPCC report clearly state that no rise in predicted extreme weather events has been seen.
As a young university press science editor in the mid-70s, I saw the article that stated increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide might be able to trap increasing heat. My reaction 1) given the well-known properties of carbon dioxide it was going to take one helluva lot of CO2, far more than we are pumping at present, and 2) if achievable, welcome it with open arms as previous Warms have been bountiful--times of health and plenty. Might even impede the coming ice age that other experts were predicting at the same time. If we can burn enough anthracite to stop Chicago from having a mile of ice sitting on top of it again, good on us.
Since 2001, the US alone has spent more than $300B on projects to combat climate-change and anti-CO2 energy initiatives, money that could've been much more productively directed to real problems. It's time to get serious about real problems and quit indulging progressives in their grandiose dreams of taking over the economy. How do we tell our grandchildren and great-grandchildren that they are still deep in debt because we listened to scare-mongering? Read Also : How has the Arab Spring fundamentally changed our conception of democracy?
Answered 2 years ago 
Wolski Kala
Wolski Kala