This is something people should read. I think you're in for some surprises. Perhaps some of you will not be, but if you are one of those who has trumpeted about the scientific consensus on Climate Change then I think this might surprise you.

I just began reading this and the introduction alone was a lot of WOW DID I READ THAT RIGHT moments. I am going to share some excerpts in this post. I do not intend for it to be taken out of context. You can read the entire PDF here.

From the Introduction

I am not going to use a quote block as I can highlight portions if I do not. I am going to instead clearly demark where the quote begins and where it ends.

BEGIN QUOTE
CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always
determined Earth’s climate.

As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added.

Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008, article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”
END QUOTE

Saying most of that would get the derogatory term DENIER applied to most people. I know because those statements are close to my own personal conclusions about what is likely at the moment. I consider it probable, but not that it is absolutely correct.

And it looks like some people that were being told they should wear tinfoil hats can actually take them off. Their conspiracy ideas about this being a political ploy to redistribute wealth and power seem to be being backed up at this very summit.

I found myself reading that and wondering where the punchline was at or when they were going to mock that. Yet that is where the introduction paragraphs end.

Key climate data highlights

If you are like me then some of this you expected to hear or read. Yet I never expected it to come out of an official summit document like this.

It then follows this up with links, quotes and images to numerous prestigious and prominent scientists. I thought about putting them here, but my goal was not to reproduce the PDF inside of this post. You could easily click on the link I provided above and review it yourself, follow the links it provides, verify its authenticity, challenge it, and do all the things a good scientist should do. Meet science with science, rather than with ridicule, opinion, and politics.

As I said I am just now reading this... so I am actually reading it AS I write and make this post. I hope that people like @lemouth and others can verify, validate, or crucify portions of this report. At this point I am not sure how legit this PDF is.

This graph is proceeded by Reality check: in 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same

Global Temperature and Models

Sea Level

Polar Bears

Arctic

I am not a denier. I am however, not a fan of the political and religious approach to so called climate science. It approaches science as though anyone offering challenge is a blasphemer and this very much is not what science is about. Science welcomes challenge, as long as the challenge is framed in a scientific way or challenges the veracity of some scientific experiment in a mathematical or rigor type fashion. Theories are strengthened by answering challenges. They are overturned if they fail. This is part of seeking the truth. There should be no preconceived results that we demand to be true. That is religion, not science.

The PDF also covers Antartica, and Greenland.

It supplies the following information from 1939!!!

This was followed by an article from 1947 and an interesting paragraqph on CO2 Levels.

It has some really interesting numbers for the Parts Per Million of CO2 in the atmosphere in that section and then it dives into a section on agriculture.

In this section it has another 1974 newspaper clipping and a top Climatologist reporting 'Global Cooling'.

Extreme Weather

I'd been told that the Global Cooling statements had been debunked as the product of one scientist. It now looks as though it went beyond that.

It then goes into a section on Floods which shows the portion of flood damage has been going down substantially over the last 70 years. We could argue this is due to us being better prepared, yet I don't know if that is the case. There are a lot of links in this document and unless someone debunks it quick I will likely spend quite a bit of time mining this one.

A section on tornadoes shows they have had very quiet seasons recently.

I am going to fast forward through this now and will only point out anything really interesting to me. I think you get the point and you can follow the link to the PDF at the top and see what you can come up with if you are interested.

i've written blog posts here about not liking how they switched to the term Climate Change as that is going from Global Warming which is a specific sub-set of Climate Change and then going to the super set. The climate is always changing. The question is how fast is it changing, and is it human caused. When it was Global Warming we had a specific target. Once they renamed it Climate Change then literally anything can happen and they can say "see we were right". It is hedging your bets, or rigging the game. I mention this because the PDF has the following...

Wow and if you want proof this is exactly what the so-called science is doing... check this out. You can follow the actual links in the PDF.

97% Climate Consensus

That's it....

Conclusion

I don't know in what capacity this document was presented in Paris. It could have a catchy title. I do not see something like this being the OFFICIAL presentation as that'd be very counter to the obvious political agenda.

My suspicions are that this was some presenter that was there to present a different view. I'd really like to know more about this as if this is legit then this is a bombshell and if it is at all accurate then people bashing deniers have some apologies to be making.

I don't know much yet. I just read it and there is a lot of digging, challenging, and verifying to do. That is of course unless some of you in steemit land know something about this I do not.

Steem On!

EDIT: It doesn't look official to me. The person giving the presentation is Marc Morano who founded and runs the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot.com. I'd still like to know what the rest of you think though.

EDIT 2: I kept saying this was presented in Paris. The document clearly states it was given in Morocco. Sorry I thought this was pretty major news so I rushed a bit too fast to type it out, and get it out to you guys.