Since the warming plateaued in recent years, data corrections have become ubiquitous. Many of the corrections are warranted and accurate. But somehow, the past always gets colder and the present warmer. I have challenged the people who do data corrections to cite one example where the overall warming trend was reduced in the surface data after a revision. They cannot. I have counted about 16 revisions to HadCrut or GISS and all of them increased the warming trend. I would expect error corrections to be random about the mean. Therefore, the chance of these error corrections not being biased is roughly 65,000 to one. But, this game is almost up. The satellites and adjusted surface data are diverging more and more as the "corrections" get bigger and bigger. Scientists are watching. Data is being saved. Questions are relentlessly being asked.

Climate change laws have cost the world's developed countries billions in productivity. One large volcanic eruption will put more green house gases in the atmosphere than fossil fuel emissions from industry. China will continue to burn coal until there is no more coal. Meanwhile the EU and America penalize industry in their countries giving China more market share. Obama and the legions of liberals have tied industry in knots with regulations that are costly and counter productive. The biggest threat to the world is an elephant in the room. Over population is the threat not pollution. But it is not PC to talk about population. The growing population has lead to bad farming practices and ultimately will be the biggest problem facing our planet. You can call it climate change or any other name, but it is overpopulation. It seems under acknowledged to me that temperature record keeping began in the 1880s, which is when Krakatoa blew its top and gave the world a decade of cold.  As for overpopulation - we are feeding more people with less land than ever, and that trend's not going to change. The real threat, especially in the First World, is underpopulation. Below-replacement birth rates are going to topple all the Ponzi-scheme welfare systems that are currently transferring wealth from the young to the retired and elderly. The authors do an admirable job of summarizing the science and politics here.

What lies beneath the surface, however, is the undeniable fact that the sole basis for the catastrophic predictions are complex computer models (my field, by the way) that have, by any reasonable metric, failed to forward predict the current climate! To the extent that there is any quantifiable science (but I repeat myself) of climate catastrophe, it is these models. And models whose forward predictions do not correspond to observations are, to put it simply, not worth the electrons that are expended in running them. Any conclusions made from these models are arbitrary - they're "not even wrong".  To make a single person poorer as a result of the current state of climate science is irrational and immoral. I actually think the models are pretty good. But some estimates are made of things that can't be modeled properly. I suspect these estimates are intentionally exaggerated. Despite the billions spend on the models, they simply give you what you want depending on you initial assumptions. We now have a pretty long track record. This link shows the forecasts that launched the entire global warming industry in 1988. The graph is a simple forecast vs observed.

Skeptics can hardly be called "true believers".  There is no empirical evidence, even over geologic periods when co2 level was several TIMES higher than now, showing that co2 level has EVER had any impact on temperature.  The "true believers" are those who respond to the above by ignoring, denying, or responding with obfuscation and distraction. The greenhouse gas theory, as applicable to the atmosphere, includes a necessary condition - there must be a warm region in the troposphere above the tropics. It is NOT there, despite tens of millions of radiosondes. What's more, the open atmosphere hardly qualifies as a greenhouse. There is no convection across its boundaries, and no planetary level feedbacks experienced within its boundaries. Satellites detect heat escaping to space. The only correlation between co2 and temperature is the reverse of what the alarmists need. Temperature variation, both up and down is followed, by 800 to 2800 years by similar co2 variation.