The only thing I am casting doubt upon is the unanimous (98%!) scientific consensus which should be pretty debunked by now. Done it again in this thread based on Mav's own citings. If you don't want to back away from that then there is no discussion to be had. It's like saying "so we all agree on creationism let's start the discussion from there."
Your second sentence is a strawman as that is not my stance nor has it been.
You did not debunk anything. You didn't even read the articles in question, then spouted out complete falsehoods, and refused to address if you had even looked at the literature at all.
AGW has overwhelming support among scientists, and yes, among the experts in the field (publishing climate scientists) that study this stuff or a living there is a 97% consensus that humans are the primary driver of the current climate change, which has been shown in several studies over the last decades. If you wish to make the argument that 97% of those experts are flawed and bias, you can try to, but it's patently hilarious to suggest that there is no money for research into causes outside of AGW for climate change, so I hope that is not your intent (though it'd be amusing if so).
Just because there is no consensus on exactly how much or the ultimate outcome of climate change, or the exact nature of the human contribution, does not mean there is no consensus in AGW.
Edited by mav1234, 25 June 2014 - 09:31 PM.