> The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts.
Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure?
> Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure
No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2].
> No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015.
Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again.
> NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records.
Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated.
> Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable.
I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real.
> The past is the key to the future.
ok?
> Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes.
Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804...
[2] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
[3] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...