Not surprisingly, Agronomist and fellow warmists are unable to table empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. What these politically-correct people peddle is pseudoscience.

There is no scientific justification for taking government action to reduce CO2 emissions. Consequently, there is no economic justification for taking such action.

There is no justification for government to spend scarce taxpayer or borrowed funds on so-called climate control. There is no measurable climate impact of the billions and billions of dollars spent -- actually wasted -- on such action. However, there is no denying the fact that expenditure on replacing reliable, low-cost coal power generation with renewable, unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power has impacted adversely on power prices,

Not surprisingly, denialists assert blah blah blah without a scientific theory of their own! See, science isn't just sticking your fingers in your ears and throwing a childish tantrum. It involves attacking the current prevailing theory with EVIDENCE! Every time denialist try to play science — as in EVERY time — the peer reviewed crowd reply and expose the half-truths and outright lies.

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On your side:
Cranks and Contrarians and 7-day Creationists.
Tinfoil hat, much?

PS Raycom: Dr James Hansen, the world's foremost climatologist that diagnoses our climate emergency, agrees with you on renewables.

Many climate experts, including Dr James Hansen, say we HAVE to adopt nuclear power because wind and solar only work a third of the time. Today's grids simply cannot cope with a high degree of unreliable power. These experts are not impressed with Germany's eye-wateringly expensive renewable white-elephants that have hardly cut CO2 emissions. France has been cleanly fissioning uranium instead of fossil fuels for decades, and has the cleanest, highest electricity exports in the world. Dr James Hansen, said:
"Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

Dr Hansen promotes a book by his friend Tom Blees: "Prescription for the Planet" free at the link below.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf
It recommends we just nationalise electricity with Integral Fast Reactors that eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 year storage problem into hundreds of years of clean energy, are inherently and passively safe, and avoid the 2.6 million coal dust deaths we get each year.

If we listen to Dr Hansen on our climate problem, why not the solution? He says we must build 115 reactors a year! (This is entirely possible, as it is slower than the GDP per reactor ratio the French achieved decades ago).
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

It is difficult to say whether Max’s posts are purely dishonest or based more on stupidity which is certainly a big factor.
He repeats the97% lie again. When I posted a complete refutation of the 97% lie, he said he was referring to a different lie to the one refuted and gave a web address at which had no mention of the topic. That was a stupid lie, as is the Hiroshima bombs nonsense.
What is clear is that he has no science to support his assertions, which are based squarely on his dishonesty.

Mhaze really is having trouble finding that lone National Academy of Science, isn't he? What's happened Mhaze, given up?

Leo Lane: What is clear is that he has no science to support his assertions, which are based squarely on his dishonesty.

In other words, just another science and economics illiterate greenie.