I am absolutely amazed and disgusted over the general level of human intelligence I've discovered through the means of global warming. The standards of proof normally required in a court case or scientific experiment have followed the same rules since ancient Greece and Egypt, are documented, taught and known universally, yet have been totally abandoned while the world now heads straight for the dark ages at the hands of those who know better and exploit it.
Originally the media were very clear and simple. They stuck with the headlines. We have put out huge amounts of CO2 which has raised the temperature and will melt the ice and raise the sea levels. Then the internet came along, plus a few more detailed reports, which focussed in far more depth and showed that the one thing we knew was the CO2 level, which has now officially risen around 50%. But the rest of it wasn't quite as clear. The temperature varied depending on who you read, and how it was measured and then adjusted in ways I'm sure even their peers don't always understand. The sea level however was only rising the same amount it had for centuries, around 8 inches a century. That clearly could not be dangerous, as it's always been that way, and has not changed. Working back, if the sea level, far easier to measure and more stable than the rapidly fluctuating temperature, is not actually rising any more, then the two factors required to make it rise, thermal expansion and land ice melting, could not either be increasing any more than normal, ie in the cyclical warming phase between ice ages we have had since the day the earth had an atmosphere, caused by the wobbling orbit and solar changes.
Although many details laid on top of this formula are incredibly complicated this foundation is very simple. The official (not tested in the field as there is no control mechanism, ie a second planet without the CO2 rise to compare it with) figure for existing CO2 at 260ppm added a degree C to the 33C total over deep space. The only reason global warming could be a problem would be if the doubling of CO2, which would happen around 2100 at current rates, added more than 2C, which would require both a rise in humidity from evaporating oceans, and its presence in the atmosphere where it was able to cause a greater greenhouse effect.
It is that simple, and everyone can understand this. Nothing else can be added or taken away from this to alter the outcomes. Unless 2C is reached and breached, according to the experts at the UN, the benefits of warming (greater food production, fewer wars over limited resources, fewer deaths from cold etc) would not be outweighed by the problems, which they do not actually know beyond the rising sea level as there are few historic records to explain possible changes in extreme weather, droughts and floods at such a temperature, ie they don't know.
The great majority of the theory was based not on the risen CO2 or even temperature, but what would happen in 2100, based on the entire potential range of feedback from negative to extreme, offering a range from around 1-6C, with 4 in the middle, way above their safe level. But this was purely speculation, and 20 years after it was made the actual temperature is just below the lowest possible level for 2013 on their diagram and no sign of rising. The experiment they created, doubling CO2 and seeing what happens, is half done, the total rise is 0.8, less the amount from the pre-existing natural rise which is around half that. Therefore doubling CO2 to 520ppm cannot rise above 1.6C even if it were responsible for the entire amount.
There is simply nothing complicated or controversial here. The foundations for the additional academic complexities such as extreme weather changes, water vapour distribution, solar and geological influences etc., are all subsumed by the big picture. When the scientists constantly present a melting glacier here (some of which turned out to be made up, such as the Himalayas) and a storm there, and then expect everyone to believe it represents dangerous climate changed caused by global warming, they are breaking every rule of their profession and of life itself, yet nearly everyone accepts it. This has demonstrated two things to me, firstly the entire lack of intelligence and logic in the vast majority of people who should have known better, and secondly the entire trust in authority over experts who make mistakes and lie.
This is a dangerous combination indeed and has been fully exploited to its maximum level. I have stripped it apart into its few essential components and hopefully presented it in an accurate but simple enough way it should be impossible to misinterpret. All the claims of dying birds, polar bear migrations and even the latest debacle over the summer Arctic ice melt in 2012-3 are all subsumed by the single linked rise in CO2 and lack of a corresponding rise in temperature. The UN have never either stated a delay in the positive feedback, besides one comment by James Hansen that the ocean may store the heat before releasing it, but that was never expected to be a major factor, or raised a single other issue besides the 2C rise in temperature (such as the incorrectly named 'ocean acidification') as causing the pages of problems listed in their regular reports.
I have checked, double checked and triple checked everything I have written (like the scientists are supposed to, and the media who report them), and cannot see a single thing wrong with it, as these are mainly agreed figures and impossible to refute. Given such a relatively simple equation then with a half-run experiment and corresponding absence of warming, then unless they can find an incredibly original reason to alter their parameters, the 2050 and 2100 projections must be scrapped as they are now impossible to reach. While the scientists are struggling to explain why the temperature is no longer warming or reaching anywhere near the level required to cause a problem in 2100, the temperature continues to do what it does regardless, and diverges further and further from global warming, whether man made or otherwise. And this is before the vast differences in temperature location and adjustment are brought into account, as before adjustment many aren't even showing a rise at all in many places, and needed to be coaxed into performing, so maybe the only man made element of warming is in the alterations to cause it to appear.