Andie, there is no conspiracy here. Instead of finding websites that fit your viewpoint how about I post the thousands of peer reviewed articles on anthropogenic climate change? Or maybe I can post the list again of every scientific organization on Earth that accepts the conclusions made about human-caused climate change.
Unfortunately, we humans have a terrible track record when it comes to "scientific consensus". From stomach ulcers to the laws of physics themselves, approximately 95% of all scientific theories have been proven wrong over the years, many with even stronger scientific "consensus" than AGW/climate. So, forgive me for rolling my eyes at your naïveté here.
That said, yes, I do believe humans are altering the climate system to some degree. Most scientists share this belief. But there's a difference between acknowledging some level of anthropogenic/CO^2 radiative forcing on the climate system, and promoting the fictitious, nonsensical idea(s) that:
- The systematic conduits to equilibration run through a slew of cascading, self-sustaining positive feedback loops that amplify responsive boundary state perturbations from external forcings. This idea is contrary to both real world observations and the paleoclimate data, yet the climate modeling community can't seem to break away from this clearly incorrect interpretation of the system state.
- The fictitious idea that the modern day climate change is somehow "unprecedented" by Holocene standards. This might be the most preposterous idea ever put forth in climate science, and it runs contrary to all reliable, high resolution proxy data. Heck, you have the remains of ancient trees and cutting tools (dated as recently as 900-1000 years ago) being revealed under melting glaciers today, where it is still too cold/arid for anything to grow today.
- The fictitious idea that humans have somehow "taken over" the climate system and pushed it beyond a "tipping point". Again, this idea is nonsensical and confined to the fairytale world within climate models that completely and utterly fail to simulate natural climate change, and run outrageously large warm biases almost immediately after initialization. See the sub-seasonal warm bias on the CFSv2 weekly temperature forecasts if you want an example of this. And the CFSv2 weekly extrapolations run on a higher resolution than the majority of climate models used to fortify the AGW theory.
Believing that scientists are fudging the numbers personally offends me as a potential future scientist. I would suggest that many of you go to the closest university to where you live and have a chat with professors in the climate science or related fields.
Your naïveté offends me, as a scientist. Do you fully understand how tri-atomic gases like CO^2 are able to intercept and redirect infrared radiation at particular frequencies under boundary conditions for thermalization that vary in efficiency with geopotential height, and why this alters the thermodynamic budget of the climate system?
My well-intentioned suggestion to you is that, instead of blindly appealing to authority and/or "consensus", you actually do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Feeling "insulted" over others' interpretations of the physical workings of the climate system, despite not understanding them yourself, is laughably arrogant and reveals you to have emotional and/or political reasons for your "scientific" opinions. Please try to abandon any preconceived ideas you have about the climate system before beginning a career in climate science. It will help your career and your conscience in the long run.
There isn't a professor or even student for that matter in my department that doesn't accept the scientific consensus over anthropogenic climate change. Maybe they are all in on it too, huh?
For the record, I'm also (apparently) a member of your silly "consensus" club, as worthless as it may be. You can rightfully acknowledge the anthropogenic forcing(s) on the climate system without jumping into the rabbit hole of positive feedback loops and other alarmist fairytales.