I've covered a lot of these issues on our
website, along with some in-depth science. However, to recap:
The original land temperature records for the USA show that the 1930's were warmer that the present decade. (Yeah, I didn't believe that when I saw it, but I've plotted the genuine data and it IS true.) Evidence of tampering with historical data is now emerging for some other regions. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, but it's kinda looking bad for the alarmists.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but its effect is logarithmic, and once beyond 40ppm further increases have only small effects. This is why you would not expect the industrial era increase to cause much warming.
The statement that 'Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas' is complete BS. Its effect is tiny.
(You can check all of this with the online
MODTRAN)
The IPCC claims that the effect of CO2 will be amplified by 'feedbacks' - but you can't have controlled amplification by a positive feedback loop whose output is directly connected to the input. (Both are air temperature.)
Sea levels are indeed rising, but at 3mm per year, and they've been doing that since before the industrial era. Furthermore you can't have greater sea level rise in one place than in another on the same land mass.
The sea is alkaline, and when you add a small amount of acid to an alkali you reduce the corrosiveness of the solution. Not, increase. School chemistry 101.
Even Wikipedia, that bastion of climate hysteria, states that severe weather events were stronger and more common in the 1930's than today. (The apparent higher cost of storm damage today stems from large numbers of flimsy buildings being put up in hurricane allleys)
The Greens are fanatically against shale gas, but want to do geothermal energy. Which uses the identical fracking process they say will cause disasters.
Meanwhile, climate change mitigation activities cost the world around $1.5 trillion US Dollars a year. The effectiveness so far has been ... NIL. CO2 is still increasing at the same rate as before it all started. When you think about the colossal amount of money involved, more than the GDP of many countries, what other things could have been done with this money that would have actually benefitted humanty, or the planet?
That, and Greenpeace want to stop fusion research. I think we can see why. Considering that it would only cost five days' worth of global climate expenditure to complete ITER, it must worry them that it could put an stop to all of this.