Climate change is a perception variable and its interpretation is equally so. To predict, it is necessary to have far more information than we now have and to understand it properly requires extensive knowledge in many scientific disciplines. Each discipline has its bias. Climate science is biased toward GHG warming, the majority finding blaming human emissions brings constant and generous funding. Other disciplines have followed suit in blaming humans and found it equally rewarding. Ocean science that encompasses almost as many disciplines as those land based has its own cadre of alarmists that seek to blame everything bad on human emissions. Lately they have been dubbed rent seekers.
The unsung geologists dealing with the planet's geological history by a large majority according to hearsay from their own branch find AGW by trace gas ludicrous as climate has changed rapidly many times in the past, up and down, not by a few tenths per century but by whole degrees in less than a decade. They also struggle to believe any connection with CO2 as a driver as it has been found associated with warming but as a follower rather than a leader. Methane is found to be in a similar situation. The indications are that third parties cause variation in all the factors, the respondents taking different times to react.
The main pillar of the AGW hype is the ice cores that, after data points tens of thousands of years apart initially showed CO2 in very close harmony with warming, (Gore's selling point). It was found to follow warming by 400 to over a thousand years once higher resolution data was available. That was a mighty blow to the "guilt of humans" movement and so remains. The whole circus should have folded at that time but too much had been invested, not just tens of billions of dollars in "prove it" research, green business and marketing, but also in reputations, careers and political direction. And so it turned into a farce.
Much store has been set by IPCC scientific findings that is misplaced. The IPCC is a political organisation and uses political direction to achieve its own agenda irrespective of the truth. Everyone knows to use "politician" and "philanthropic" in the same breath is an oxymoron. That it has used every trick known to political science to achieve its ends by "proving" AGW by a trace of a trace gas is both real and harmful and settled science by ignoring and suppressing conflicting opinions and knowledge is testament to their true nature.
Originally under the UNEP umbrella, the founding members of the IPCC were party to the DDT scandal whereby millions died from malaria because of its pressure on governments to ban the pesticide based on suspicion. Ozone destruction due to human emissions of CFCs is another contentious issue where that organisation cost industry billions based on controversial suspicion. Their era of harmful advice must surely end soon and all agenda driven organisations that give a strong impression of being run by crooks judging by the amount of fraud, and nepotism must be curtailed by funding limitation to their original objective - improve life quality - that they so manifestly work in conflict of. Servants with a master wannabe complex and freedom to plunder.
Science will end and is ending the political shenanigans beginning with a media turnaround that is already taking place. Not just due to the weather that has seen the agenda driven driven to ever more shrill hysteria as public opinion slowly reverses, but by the snowballing emergence of closet contrarian science that was suppressed by reputation smear and dismissal of scientists and meteorologists for holding opposing views and by the discovery of ignored conflicting science and fact suppression such as the benefits of warming and increasing CO2 levels. The failure of models both in prediction of temperature increase (over guessed) and temperature reversal, of the cooling of oceans that dismissed the "stored heat that will come back and bite us" dogma rescue blather, has seen modellers publicly distancing themselves from the IPCC, claiming models were merely scenario projections and not predictions (about which they had been remarkably silent beforehand). The IPCC also tried this line, but their innocence claim was contrary to what they had written repeatedly in their interminably wrong assessments.
Where are we now? Models are in fact projections that don't perform very well due to the absence of knowledge of various important factors. Predicting that the following year's climate will be the same as that of its preceding year scores better than forecasts. Models are not useless, they can give important clues to future climate but their importance has been very much overstated and hyped well beyond reason.
Ice core data of CO2 levels is strongly conflicted for many reasons but note, I haven't found much argument against the pattern of increase and decrease being similar to temperature and methane despite the hundreds of years lag.
Why am I a "denier"? I am not a scientist but I can read. That the claim of settled science took a day to discover was false (via the late John Daly's website) 5 years ago when there was a paucity of contrarian websites gave me reason to doubt the rest of the much hyped claims. I have spent most of my free time since looking at conflicting science and following the research to discover how the climate really works. I had a suspicion from the outset that oceans at ~70% of the planet surface were probably the biggest factor in regulation and that has been increasingly reinforced as the years passed.
The underlying temperature is rising at around half a degree per century that is what is to be expected as we emerge from the last major glacial period and the recent Little Ice Age. The major unknowns are whether we will continue to warm or suddenly cool by the influence of:
cloud at various densities and heights,
gases (especially water vapour) at various densities and heights,
aerosols as warming and cooling actors,
sea ice variation,
ocean and air currents and oscillations,
tectonics, volcanoes and heat movement below the surface,
heat and gas emissions from the ground and the sea floor,
planet axis wobbles,
extra terrestrial actors including the Sun and other planets,
surface and ocean biomass - that includes us, we are a part of nature,
and of course those yet to be discovered influencers.
When we know those in depth, we will have a good idea what is coming next. Not anytime soon despite what the IPCC and Al Gore, the rent seekers both in and out of the science community and the green agenda driven would have you believe.
And that folks is the naked truth of it. Sack the power lusting bandwagoneer governments and NGOs and put someone in charge that puts us ahead of weak and broken hypotheses, the profit and agenda driven and human haters.