Tom, you didn't mention that President Obama's view on climate change would have been reinforced by the NCA document published last month with over 3,000 references supporting it. Please debunk the paper and references.
Lawrence Krauss, a physicist has just reaffirmed that anthropogenic climate change is occurring on Q&A on Monday night. You would expect a physicist to know a bit more about physics than other professionals.
Whether there is a 97% consensus of scientists who believe in climate change is merely academic, though there has been more than one study to make that suggestion.
It is merely academic on the basis of what is actually happening:
What has caused the bodies of Japanese servicemen to to be washed out to sea in the Marshall Islands, reported June 2014?
Why has the fire season been coming earlier and earlier in Siberia, a wild fire was recorded in April 2014?
What about wildfires in Norway in January 2014?
Can you explain Tom, how water the Inuit had been drinking in Northern Canadas was found to have pathogens (I do have references for these points, a National Geographic reference in this case).
Professor Lesack(2014) in studying the McKenzie River found that temperatures had increased over several decades by 3.2C in Spring, and 5.3C in Winter. Are you suggesting that his study is wrong?
Erosion of coastlines in Alaska no longer protected by ice is occurring; why?
Inuit can no longer travel safely into many areas, why?
Hunting is becoming difficult for the Inuit, why?
Can you explain Tom why fish are being caught off Greenland that are normally caught further South in warmer waters?
Tom you might like to also explain why small ponds/lakes and small shrubs are beginning to form on tundra?
Why does thermokarst failure occur? What happened to the Richardson Highway in Alaska, was that a case of thermokarst failure?
Why is it that we hear that temperatures have stopped increasing when this decade a number of records have been broken?
continued

continued
You might like to reflect on why in the main glaciers are retreating?
Why is it necessary for hydrology to be studied in the Andes?
What illnesses have been moving North and South from tropical and semi tropical areas?
Tom, you belong to the International Climate Science Coalition, so you should be able to easily answer all of these questions.

The IPCC 5th Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013 includes a condensed summary for policymakers. Buried in the summary is this statement: "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that
agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed
trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)".

The statement is essentially saying the warming trend was aligned with the simulated model projections up until 1998 and from then on (1998 + 15 years = 2013) the reality has been quite different.

The IPCC of course cannot rejoice in the observed change or it will be out of business; so the changes are called an anomaly and written off as an inconvenient truth.

sbr108, glaciologist complain that computer models are not keeping up with what is happening in the Arctic region. In 2014 there have been huge variations in temperatures from one week to the next reported in parts of Alaska and Greenland; in other words anomalous.

Ant - my point is that when you have a trend the deviates from your computer model for 15 years, surely a new trend has emerged. When a change takes place that moves completely away from your model and projections and continues for 15 years, you can't simply write it off as a short term anomaly. Your forward projections are out the window.

The IPCC can't say a new trend has emerged or it negates its whole purpose for existing and that of the new religious faithful.

Ahhh, still arguing about the wrong problem ?