There is a lot of conflicting information out there, and a lot of it is placed there by denialists who are directly trying to distort facts. Here are the facts about the items you listed: Here's something important to point out. Any "research skeptical towards anthropogenic climate change" must accurately account for all the data that has been generated in the past 100 years. None do that. It's not fascism, it's following the scientific method. Bad studies get bad peer reviews. It's how the system works.Climate models haven't worked out
Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence.humans only contribute 7% of CO2 in the atmosphere
Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million yearsthe greenhouse effect of CO2 is very small
we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.ideological fascism
When looking at peer-reviewed climate publications over the past 20 years that take a position on the cause of global warming, 97 percent agree that humans are responsible.
Anybody who submits counter evidence is immediately labeled as a 'denialist' rather than taken seriously, which is part of the problem. Also methane is another very weak greenhouse gas, and the response doesn't account for what atomic absorption spectroscopy shows. The big greenhouse gas is water vapor. The peer reviewed publications are looked at by other climatologists, it's just an echo chamber, any counter-evidence is immediately discarded as denialism for example the 2003 paper which tried to discredit the hockey stick graph which did actually get a response though much of it was name calling. The vast majority of climate models haven't worked out though, which recently caused a big controversy because they couldn't account for the heating that was predicted but didn't show up in the atmosphere. They later found it in the oceans however, which have been acting as a massive heat sink, which one and only one model predicted and it wasn't the one they expected.
Are you going to address my arguments or are you just going to call them false without providing evidence? How about how many times the IPCC have been caught lying? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Responses_and_criticisms http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz2udqBRi6x http://www.sasfor.com/39/post/2010/01/ipcc-caught-lying-again.html When their data is questions they switch to ad-hominem attacks. Climate scientists act like a bunch of radicals on a crusade rather than actual scientists and they get political power because of their scare tactics against those who aren't capable of arguing against them. They're eschatologists.
You made accusations without providing evidence to those accusations. I went through and responded to your initial claims one by one. And provided links to evidence. If you want to make an accusation please show your evidence. You are using a very common tactic for deniers and many conspiracy theorists. Pointing out a small flaw or fluctuation in the data and trying to use it to invalidate everything. It is a logical fallacy called Cherry picking or fallacy of incomplete evidence. In that first link it clearly states that they made a mistake, admitted to it and made changes. Hardly a lie. If you want to accuse someone of lying you actually need evidence that they are lying. Not that a date was wrong in a report. Errors happen all the time. Do not let confirmation bias lead you in the wrong direction. The articles showing that the Himalayan Glacier is growing is another example of cherry picking a single data point and trying to use it to invalidate everything. The actual fact is that while there can be accumulation due to local precipitation, the overall trend is a massive loss of ice. Cherry picking an individual glacier or ignoring long term trends does not change anything. As shown in the below graph from Cogley 2009 This video is a perfect example of glacier melt off from different parts of the world and just how massive the loss is. This video shows the loss of the Kilimanjaro's glaciers. The rate of loss means that it could be completely gone by 2030. It is a clear fact that glacier ice and Arctic ice is disappearing over time, and the changes are accelerating.