Still no science, Max, to show any measurable human effect on climate, so your assertions are baseless.
Even you must be aware that Cook’s “peer reviewed” paper on 97% of scientists supporting the consensus fraud has been shown to be baseless. There is a difference of opinion as to whether he is a liar or incompetent, but anyone familiar with his deceptively named web-site, “Skeptical Science” knows that he is a liar.
I have posted the science numerous times to show that the CO2 hypothesis of the fraud promoters has failed empirical observation.
No wonder you are the school dunce. You are resistant to learning. Your assertions ignore the science, which is summaised as follows:
“"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate, is there, Max?

"Even you must be aware that Cook’s “peer reviewed” paper on 97% of scientists supporting the consensus fraud has been shown to be baseless."

The fact that you think it's Cook's shows what a denialist echo-chamber you live in! What a sheltered little world you live in.

The school dunce, typically, failed to give a reference to the” * 97% of the opinions that matter”
In his garbled response he seems to say that he has a different 97% to the failed assertion by Cook.
He has failed twice to give the reference.
Do you have one, Max, or are you lying again?
Most dunces refer to this one:
* 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere"

Dude, there are many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

There is not one scientific academy on the planet that questions it. Not one!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

But yes, a survey does not indicate science. Yet the number of qualified *climate* scientists supporting AGW should tell you something. You just don't want to look!

Max the troll. Web addresses that do not relate to the consensus, and a stupid remark about it not being denied by bodies that have not considered it.
You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, so what you have posted makes you a troll, as well as a dunce.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so you are asserting that there are dishonest climate scientists? Yes, it does tell me something.

Sorry Leo but you forgot to write using English grammar. I'll post my main link again to remind you to read and, um, hopefully (although I don't want to be *too* much of a dreamer)... think.

There is not one scientific academy on the planet that disagrees with the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems every National Academy of Science agrees! So, are they all dunderheads that can't do science? Are they incapable of accessing data on CO2's radiative forcing as tested by a Fourier Device? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It's a ridiculous presupposition. It's why I call conspiracy theorists tinfoil hatters.