“For example, what is the 97% consensus…”
The right wing Heartland Institute put up a billboard saying you have to be crazier than Unabomber Ted Kaczynski to doubt global warming.
The right wing Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine polled everyone with a science, technology, engineering, math, MD, or DVM degree (more than 5 million currently employed in the US, according to the Census Bureau; many of the signatories to the OISM petition are retired or dead), and only could come up with 31,000 who reject man made global warming. You do the math.(hint: it’s less than 1%)
… on”

– The cause of the temperature pause of the last 18 years,”
There isn’t a pause – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:216/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:216/mean:6/plot/uah/last:216/mean:6
even UAH shows an upward trend

“– The reason for the paucity of U.S. hurricanes in the last 10 years,”
http://models.weatherbell.com/global_major_freq.png”
Data is noisy; trends are up; except for Sandy, we got lucky, probably related to what Dr Jennifer Francis observed about the “lazy” jetstream.

“– Why their models should be respected given that they’ve failed to predict current climate when fed past climate data,”
False premise. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1922-6/fulltext.html ” Our results suggest that although models and data are in agreement on the direction and spatial pattern of the large-scale features of climate change (Braconnot et al. 2012; Schmidt et al. 2013; Izumi et al. 2013; Li et al. in press), there are still shortcomings in the amplitude of simulated changes.”
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Rahmstorf_2007%20Sea%20level%20exceeding%20model.pdf “The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre/ Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33°C for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC.” “Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than the rise projected by models, as shown both by a reconstruction using primarily tide gauge data (2) and, since 1993, by satellite altimeter data (3) (both series are corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment).”
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017d3da64b2b970c-pi
The model shortcomings underestimate the severity of changes, and have greater errors on the high side, where the risks grow exponentially. The Precautionary Principle demands greater respect and quicker response to mitigate global warming.

“– The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age,”
The PAGES 2k Consortium produced the most comprehensive overall reconstruction of local and global surface temperature changes over the past 1,000–2,000 years. (78 researchers contributing as co-authors from 60 separate scientific institutions around the world. Their analysis combines records from tree rings, pollen, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores, stalagmites and historical documents from 511 locations across seven continental-scale regions to reconstruct past global surface temperature changes over the past 2,000 years.) They concluded “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions.
Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.” – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html#group-1
There are more authors on this one paper than there are on the wikipedia “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” – 63 total; 17 of them actually accept the basic scientific premise that anthropogenic global warming is/will happen, but believe that not enough is know to accurately project by how much; and 4 are dead.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf “…Little Ice Age (whether defined by the particularly cold conditions in Europe during the 16th – 18th centuries, or the more modest large-scale cooling of the 15th – 19th centuries) invites questions as to what factors may have led to such a cooling….Though some of the long-term cooling of the climate prior to the 20th century might have been associated with astronomical factors, such factors cannot explain the pronounced and relatively short-duration cooling observed in many regions….injection of sunlight-reflecting sulfate aerosols by explosive volcanic eruptions, for example, may be responsible for some of the cooling of the early and mid 19th century…the observation that other regions, including the western US and the Middle East, appear, in fact, to have been warmer than usual is consistent with a hypothesized relationship between volcanic forcing of climate and the response of the North Atlantic Oscillation. The longer-term variations, and in particular cooler temperatures during the 17th century and warmer temperatures during the 18th century were likely to have been related to a concomitant increase in solar output by the Sun by approximately 0.25% following the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century (Lean et al. , 1995; Mann et al. , 1998) ( see Maunder Minimum, Volume 1). Finally, changes in the ocean circulation (e.g., the Gulf Stream) of the North Atlantic, and associated impacts on North Atlantic storm tracks, may have emphasized temperature changes in Europe.

“– The cause of the Ice Age and its end” Try googling “Milankovic cycles”

With the handle “Not Man Made” we must assume that in your mind global climate chance is a totally natural event with man not causing any part of it. Therefore we are so screwed.

If global climate change is a natural event, man has no chance of turning back the tide of the change.

However, it becomes much simpler (not easy but simpler in concept) to reverse this process if man is providing lets say 95% of root causes. The closer the percentages between natural causes and man made causing become; the harder it will become to make significant changes to reduce global climate change.

I stand by my initial response. Your checklist of contrarian memes is a waste of time without a basic understanding of the larger issue, though your continued ignorance suggests that time-wasting is in fact why you’re here.

“See Noevo would do well to begin here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/mindex.shtml”

Where in that IPCC report is the 97% consensus on the five points I asked about in #11?

There are few things as pathetic as a part-time pirate’s plea for attention. Lobbing a non sequitur here gains you no more ‘street cred’ than that Harley sticker you placed on your Rascal.

I can tell you… They’re not telling you that. Why do you read it as though they were? Who told you that?

Refer to the data above for a climate scientist to tell you what the data reveals is happening in Australia — with regards to climate, not your local weather.