Click to get your own widget
The models just keep looking worse and worse.  And we are spending trillions based on this???
(Thanks to Anythony Watts at www.wattsupwiththat.com):

Model Prediction failure  hansen temp
climate therm
Rest assured, they are after the money:
Enderhofer quote
Figueroa
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014. AP
At a news conference .. in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. Article on this.

normal_climate

Normal Climate --Would you prefer this?!  ^

   Satellite Data CO2_levels  GreenlandIce

pause?  or normal variation? ^  Past CO2 levels ^ Past Temp according to Greenland Ice ^

temp over the past  Europe ice ages

GISS vs Sat Planned coal plants
cost of electricity ChinavsUS  PlanetEarth

mean sea level NY
Good Sea Level rise summary
CRU has Finally given up the hockey stick lie!  graphs
(thanks to Steve McIntyre of www.climateaudit.org )
It's the Sun, Stupid! Look here and here...
Its the Supernovae, stupid...   here
These are the only three graphs you need to see... electricity, temperature, polluters
Even the IPCC knows the game is up 12-2012: look at graph
The liberal-academic-industrial complex - much like the complexes Eisenhower warned us about.
James Hansen finally admits climate won't kill us tomorrow
Climate Models cannot predict the climate
Global Warming Petition Project
Ode to the welfare state
A sober look at alternative energies
Green cars aren't always so green
Cost of wind/solar
Facts on Wind Power
Climate Money Story
Even Google says no hope for alternate energy

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms  and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

.....analysis of article
Great Discussion of Climate Change Conspiracy
Deep Sixing the 97% consensus argument
Great Argument showing AGW Failure
Electric vehicles pollute as much as gas
Unbelievable...  Att Gen Lynch on prosecuting Climate Change "Deniers"
Roger pielke too true lament.
Scott Adams explains it all
IPCC Third Assessment Report, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
NASA data tampering
William Connollley Tampering of wikipedia
David Siegel
80 temperature graphs
Planned Coal Stations.   And the US has how many?  Why is the world going nuts with CO@ when we have about 5000 planned ones????
Solar Panel Toxic Waste.  Why aren't the greens concerned about things like this!!!!
Tesla Car manufacture creates more CO2 than driving one. 
Acknowledgment of the pause, finally.

There are five official temperature data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth's surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

Here is a study which shows the corruption in the modification of the basic data.

Science is all about the continual testing of theories to ensure they are still valid, which is why the global warming cult's tut-tutting reply "The science is settled" is a non-sequitur.  Ed Driscoll

95% of all CO2 emitted each year is natural  - various sources.  Hard to believe the 5% emitted by humans has much effect.  And "balance"  -- what is that and what should it be?   CO2 has been higher and lower in the past.

There's too much authority and too little hard facts in much of science today. Well, actually there always has been, but with grant money flowing only to those who conform to the consensus it's really bad now.  Jerry Pournelle

Drax, Britain's biggest power station, received more than 450 million in subsidies in 2015 for burning biomass, which was mostly American wood pellets. 
[....ignoring the coal under the ground of course.]   Curiously, there are over 200 trillion cubic feet of dead trees stored under Lancashire. They may have been very very small trees, like algae sized, but nonetheless, 4,999 kilometers closer. Apparently when all the trees of Canada and the US are used up, and the UK moves out of the Wood Age, it will have some spare gas  to heat UK homes for the next 1,200 years.   Jo Nova 2-26-2017

"For more than a decade
, climate scientist/activist James Hansen has been clear on the daunting math of CO2 reduction. He first stated that the world had ten years to reverse course on fossil-fuel reliance, a prediction made in 2006 in The New York Review of Books.  When that prediction came due, Hansen floated the need to go emissions-negative. Wow! Then, just a couple of months later, he recanted to say that we still have time to turn things around. (The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don't need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.) Lots of confusion, to say the least, from the father of climate alarmism."  Robert Bradley WUWT 3-27-2017

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.   How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."  Judith Curry on her decision to quite GATech and academia 2016

"Prepare for impassioned speeches from a bunch of extremely scientific spokesdudes and spokesmodels on how Trump hates water and air, and how spending $ Trillions with a T to cool the earth by 0.1C in fifty years is a scientifically brilliant plan supported by 97% of all true moral noble and upstanding humanoids everywhere. Amen."  Willis Eschenbach on WUWT 4-6-2017 concerning the coming "March of Scientists" 2017

Censoriously asserting one's moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts, he adds. None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know as all environmentalists should that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.  Brett Stephens NYTimes 4-28-2017

As I’ve often said, I’m not a “Climate Change Denier”, but I am definitely a model denier: the current models can’t predict the past. 
chaosmanor 5-30-2017

*A footnote: roughly half of all of the substances on Earth are carcinogenic. The proportion is the same in natural and man-made substances. The overwhelming majority of carcinogens that humans ingest come from beer, wine, mushrooms and peanuts. This is not because of additives, etc., but rather because those foods are inherently carcinogenic. Any carcinogens that we ingest via additives, preservatives, etc., are at most a footnote. Does that mean that I have stopped drinking beer and wine? Um….no. But I take it easy on the mushrooms.  --John Hindraker Powerline Blog 6-19-2017

Put Simply
, cosmic rays cause clouds  --Jerry Pournelle blog 6-6-2017

Heartland Institute about CC.   Medium's Ethan Siegel response.  Future response to Ethan. 

Jo Nova 6-19-2017 So let's get real data.  Let's separate one state in Australia, run it on 42% renewables and see what the price is ....  Oh wait.  Experiment done: spot the renewable megasuccess in South Australia: blackout costs 367m$, normal electricity twice the price.   And Al Gore lauds SA as a leader!  Certainly in cost of electricity. 
 
Australia Power Costs   Peta CredlinJune 18, 2017 12:00am  WUWT 11-18-2017
The biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.
We can’t.
And after they almost sleepwalked their way to defeat at the last election, it would appear Coalition MPs have found their voices again on the issue that has defined Australian political debate over the past 15 years or more.
There’s no doubt that any policy that lowers Australia’s CO2 emissions will increase the cost of power and any move away from baseload capacity will make our network more unreliable.
Forget the movie, this is the real “inconvenient truth” that climate change zealots have never wanted to acknowledge. For too long, the views of the Zeitgeist have dominated debate and anyone daring to question any aspect of climate change was branded a sceptic. Scientific fact or not, any issue that’s galvanised the Left to the point of hysteria makes me sceptical that it’s more about the politics than anything else.

Right now, China’s emissions are 20 times those of Australia and even if they meet their Paris Agreement commitments, by 2030, China’s emissions will be 50-60 times ours. Seriously? We sell off industry and jobs in a mistaken belief the world that is acting with similar intent but it is clear they’re not, and won’t. Again, remember my refugee example and you get what I mean.
Australia energy costs