You proved my point that you ignored the entire first part of your link that mention that no scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of the main points of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). There those points for example are;
""Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."[12]
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."[13]
Human influence on the climate system is clear.[14] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[15] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[14]
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts."[16]"
Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[18]
[
Climate Change - American Meteorological Society
"For example, nearly 7 million U.S. children are currently affected by asthma.[1] The changing climate contributes to increased levels of airborne allergens that are associated with a risk of increased allergic and asthmatic episodes.
Climate-related health issues can put the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the poor, at risk."
"Climate change has led to a growing number of extreme weather events that are even more likely to occur in the future.[2] In 2012, climate and severe weather disasters cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion.[3] From 2004 to 2013, the United States saw estimated multibillion dollar losses from the following disasters: $392 billion from hurricanes, $78 billion from heat waves and drought, and $76 billion combined from tornadoes, flooding, and severe storms.[4]"
Climate Change - Science Policy
While you will most likely ignore all of that and cling to the "facts" that you believe conforms your preconceived notions.
Well lets look, oh, the first part of your statement claimed "deny the so-strongly supported science",
so what science is being denied?
You then quote the IPCC AR5 report,
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.
Yes global temperatures are rising , as are sea levels, but notice, that in the second sentence they singled out warming as being caused by Human activity.
Saying the dominant cause of the warming since 1950 is human activity, sure sound ominous, but let's break it down to actual numbers.
Harcrut4 says the decade averaged warming since 1950 is .5923 C
The accepted forcing level for CO2 (assuming 100% is from Humans) is 5.35 X ln(410/311) X.3=.4435 C
So indeed the IPCC's statement is correct using the assumption of CO2 forcing, but that alone does not equal
catastrophic warming.
Consider that before 1950, there was .288 C of natural warming (Hadcrut4), and that the predicted amplified feedbacks
would have acted on that warming as well as any warming caused by CO2.
Total warming since before 1900 (average 1850 -1900) .88 C
Natural warming before 1950 .288 C
CO2 total forcing 5.35 X ln(410/280) X .3= .612 C
Methane forcing = ~.1C
Total warming .88 C minus the known sources (.612 C, .288 C , and .1 C)= -.1C,
that is odd, there is less total warming than there should be, but the only way for that to happen,
is if the forcing number were wrong, or if the predicted amplified feedbacks were in fact attenuated feedbacks.
This is not simple me drawing a logical conclusion, but concepts published in peer review.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
It is generally accepted that in the absence of feedback, a
doubling of CO2 will cause a forcing of ∆Q≈3.7 Wm−2 and will increase
the temperature by ∆T0≈1.1 K
However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C
The reality is that for the catastrophic predictions to be correct , the levels of amplified feedbacks, would have to be higher
than can shown with the observed data.
