What 97% of climate scientist agree on is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that's radiative effects impede cooling to produce an average warming of 1.1C per doubling of atmospheric concentration. And that's about it. Some scientists, like MIT's Richard Lindzen, believe negative feedbacks naturally mitigate to stabilize surface temperatures. Almost all the scientists who get NSF funding promote the opposite idea, that positive feedbacks that amplify any radiative "forcings." The higher the climate scientist's model's amplification, the higher their grant funding. The UN IPCC collects all peer reviewed research and puts out an assessment every 6-8 years. None of these show data supporting an increase in tropical cyclone or wildfire frequency or intensity in the last 100 years. It is, however, a projection of very very highly funded and vocal few scientists that man-caused warming is directly responsible for worldwide suffering and "climate refugees." Since CO2 and water vapor only warm by slowing night time cooling, their warming affects mainly cold latitude winter nights. Although this certainly poses a danger to Greenland and Antarctica's glaciers, increased precipitation could also mitigate increased calving as seen is happening to some degree (See Zwally 2015). Scientists who have become suspicious about climate science being corrupted and spoken out have been made to pay with forced career changes. Since they lose their government funding they become liabilities to academic institutions. For example, former Georgia Tech Physics Dept. Head, Dr. Judith Curry. After having a long career as a climate science physics professor at GA Tech she was effectively forced out about 5 years ago. She now runs a successful climate consulting and forecasting business, CFAN and hosts a blog at JudithCurry.com. Her crime, "climate heresy," was outlined in a 2010 article by Scientific American. scientificamerican.com/artic… She started to ask questions that challenged the cause. Asked about what shook her from loyalty to the consensus and she often points to the 2009 email leaks from the U. of East Anglia Climate Research Unit that exposed nefarious conversations of top climate scientists conspiring to silence publishing of critics as well as squelching skeptic's FIOA requests for their data. The most damning email came from the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, who openly admitted to falsifying the science by covering up a major known flaw in tree ring data that was used to claim current temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years. Jones explained in his 2001 email that he intended to reproduce Michael Mann's now famous hockey stick graph showing this 1000 years of data for the upcoming 2001 World Meteorological Organization meeting. In Jones's words he would "use Mike's Nature [journal] paper trick...to hide the decline." The decline they all knew was that the tree ring data showed global temperatures falling from 1960-1990s while they were actually rising. The trick was to delete the data after 1960 and replace it with weather station data and splice it in the chart without anyone noticing. For twenty years Wikipedia had the trick as a legitimate mathematical trick. Recently the truth is finally coming forth for those still alive and interested in a now ancient incident. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat… Before this scandal hit the climate blogs in 2009 Judith Curry was a climate superstar, having recently coauthored a paper showing that cyclone activity was increasing. She now points to the flaws in that 2005 (after Katrina) paper and many more in the consensus science. Her assessment now to focus on hardening and resilience rather than CO2 mitigation. But she has a new book that covers her story and that of climate in much more detail. amazon.com/s?k=judith+curry+…