Nope. I look at the meta data. Sources matter. Credentials matter. bogus petitions from oil company shills are not credible. If you have some citations refuting what 20 out of 20 of the world's top scientific academies have determined, you should link them here. But as you can see so far in this thread, such attempts haven't gone well. I do look for informed contrarian opinion but it's always the same gaggle of hack mercenaries with funding from Koch, Heritage, Heartland etc. The attempt to obfuscate and confuse regarding what's considered settled science, is transparent and frankly grotesque considering the potential consequences of climate change. These mercenaries don't even attempt to cover their tracks back to big energy. btw, no one needs to link us up to climategate, that's another coordinated and discredited publicity attack on science brought to you by big oil.

The founder of this group, is a mechanical engineer employed by Heartland Institute, a think tank funded by fossil fuel interests. http://heartland.org/tom-harris

He lists 142 names. 142. Most from third tier institutions and many with expertise in domains only vaguely related or even unrelated to climate. The prosecution rests.

It's fair to criticize the use of Kaku, as he's not a climate scientist. However it the post was in reference to a topical news story, and you have to take what you can get sometimes. You have to truly look under rocks these days to find any credible scientist disputing the climate change consensus. What few you can find are either switching positions, moderating their views or in most cases, retiring or dying off.

Christ on a bike! Quoting Kaku as an appeal to authority on climate science??

The ipcc predictions based on their GCMs have come of age. You can read the predictions from AR1 through to 5, starting in 1990. And they're wrong so far. The SPM is written by politicians and bureaucrats, in a tortuous process negotiating each sentence. It is the document that generates most of the media headlines. And as the reports are updated, the divergence between the SPM and the body of research contained in the ARs becomes greater and greater.

Somehow, AR5 expressed increased 'certainty' for future warming (the climate sensitivity to CO2) while also increasing the 95% confidence interval. This is statistical junk.

Boba fide scientists, faced with failed predictions and increased uncertainty would challenge their failed hypothesis - in this case that CO2 warming overwhelmed natural climate variability by the year 2000. Alarmists don't do that. They double down on their failed theories and smear those who challenge them as deniers who should be denied any media exposure. They are a disgrace.

The rational humans in this case are the scientists who have spent a lifetime studying climate. Predicted by computer models, extreme weather: http://beforeitsnews.com/weather/2014/11/we-are-in-the-bullseye-expert-warns-by-midweek-all-hells-going-to-break-loose-2443800.html

Michio Kaku joins CBS This Morning to warn 250 million Americans that “we are in the bullseye” and by midweek, “all hell’s going to break loose” as America prepares to be pummeled by something sounding almost Biblical, ‘BomboGenesis’. Kaku warns that air, train and vehicle traffic could be paralyzed next week, and schedules disrupted: “A massive disruption that will peak around November 13th to November 15th” Kaku informs us, before telling us that we could feel the ‘ripple effects’ throughout November. Kaku also warns “the Earth is changing” and we need to get used to seeing more “violent swings.”

Bullets points quickly summarize report highlights and mitigation options http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/11/03/twenty-nine-bullets-tell-all-about-climate-challenge/

Climate changes:

The atmosphere is getting hotter. The oceans are getting much hotter, and much more acidic. Causes:

CO2 emissions are by far the largest cause of global warming and ocean acidification, and they are rising. Methane emissions are the second largest cause of warming, and they are rising. Since 1950 human activities have led to virtually all temperature rise. Natural forces have caused virtually none of the temperature rise. The largest human sources of CO2 emissions are burning fossil fuels, making cement and burning off gas (“flaring”) from oil and gas production. Impacts:

Sea level is rising, and at an increasing pace. Glaciers are melting, ice sheets are thinning, and Arctic sea ice is disappearing. Permafrost is thawing. In North America, snow pack is decreasing. The number of cold days and nights are decreasing. The number of hot days and nights are increasing. Heat waves will occur more often and last longer. Heavy rainstorms and snowstorms will become more intense and frequent. Overall, precipitation will rise in high latitudes and the equatorial Pacific. In mid-latitudes, dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter. Species are vanishing at an alarming and ever-increasing rate. Most plants, small mammals and ocean organisms cannot adapt fast enough to keep up with changes. Global temperature rise greater than 2 degrees Celsius will compromise food supplies globally. Human health problems will get worse. Risks to poorer people are greater than for others, in all countries. What to do:

To avoid severe damage to natural and human systems, the world should keep global warming to less than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. Without more mitigation than is being done today, the temperature is more likely than not to rise by 4 degrees C by 2100. Significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 can significantly reduce warming by 2100. Keeping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below the equivalent of 450 parts per million of CO2 can keep warming below 2 degrees C. Levels are likely to stay below 450 ppm if human emissions are reduced 40 to 70 percent by 2050 compared with 2010 levels. Allowing levels to reach 530 ppm by 2100 gives the planet slightly better than 50-50 odds of staying below 2C; that would require reducing emissions 25 to 55 percent by 2050 versus 2010. To hit a target of 430 to 530 ppm by 2100, the world must invest several hundred billion dollars a year in low-carbon electricity sources and energy efficiency. It is highly unlikely the world will stay below 450 ppm without widespread use of carbon capture and storage technologies. So…improve technical solutions, reach government agreement

Might not come to that, since we're losing our fight against bacteria. Things might take care of themselves on their own.