This is an interesting thread, but the last few pages have been particularly odd.
1) Polling people is not a way to determine reality. We can cite a billion polls, but that doesn't determine facts. If that logic held water, then women would have already ended their suffrage (right to vote), dihydrogen monoxide would be banned (who really needs water any ways), and autism spectrum disorders would be cured by the anti-vaccination crowd.
2) Humans having no effect on the world because of "how insignificant" we are is crap. Ozone hole, that's humanity. Light pollution visible from space, that's humanity. Chernobyl exclusion zone, humanity again. What about the dams which provide water to the US southwest? Citing our insignificance somehow forgets that 6 billion of even something small amounts to something substantial.
3) Don't believe there's a consensus on the issue? Perhaps you need to get in line. There's a section of the population which believes that water has a memory, and somehow arsenic can cure your ailments due to the memory of that water. There's a significant contingent of people who believe that crystal have their own innate power field, and that said field can cure disease. Without singling out any specific denomination; their are faith healers who claim to cure diseases, who have never once actually cured any. While a complete consensus is nice, it's hardly necessary to start working towards some reasonable changes. Even with a 99% consensus, that doesn't mean the other side is worth giving equal attention.
4) Don't believe in global warming, fine. Don't believe in global cooling, fine. Somehow take umbrage with the term "climate change," fine. I implore you to go to Beijing between events for the outside world. I implore you to remember Pittsburgh from the late eighties and early nineties. Both places allowed you the opportunity to chew the air, and require actions to fix the environmental crap storm us humans created. Environmental protection regulation aren't just about making life difficult for businesses, sometimes it's about cleaning up what people have done. Focusing back on Pittsburgh, today it's a clean metropolis that's known more for technology than the coal dust from the steel industry. Perhaps sometimes we can agree on things which make life difficult, so that our lives are worth living.
5) "Greenhouse gasses" is the most idiotic term possible. Want to know what else is a greenhouse gas. water vapor. Assuming we could somehow remove most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, remove all the methane, and still somehow live on the planet we'd need to put some of those gasses back for fear of freezing to death. The atmosphere exists partially to trap heat from the sun, and make the planet habitable. If you didn't want any of that you could happily live on Mars. People rail against the emission of greenhouse gasses, without for a moment considering what is actually a necessity. Removing this term from the discussion is necessary, because too many people demonize it without understanding why.
Presumably we'd also like an answer to the question originally posed by the OP. In my opinion, this is less of a scandal than the report anti-vaxers use as the basis for their argument. Other scientists have come forward, and cited discrepancies. The discrepancies have been logged, assessed, and functionally dismissed. The reasoning is simple, this is based off of weather, not climate. Somehow people still conflate the two. By that logic I can determine that the entire world is experiencing the precursor to a flood designed to wipe out humanity, based on the increased annual rainfalls at my home. Climate is not equal to weather, and neither of them can be observed with a few fixed points.
As to the articles cited, maybe you should read more than just the headlines. The author is hard right line. He begins with a confirmation bias, towards proving that humans don't influence climate. He cites climate scientists, who have the same confirmation bias. The circular logic starts there, and he concludes with this one scientist being his only source. Sounds fishy, because if there was a conspiracy more than one person should be able to disprove it, no? Never mind the US geological survey claiming that the scientist was an idiot. Never mind the lies about his academic past (professor of geology retired since 1996 and the university never had a climatology department). Once you've finished overlooking glaring flaws in the argument; this article is one guy confirming what he thinks with the ideas of another guy, who has no qualifications and data to support his assertions, and is all built on the supposition that the entire rest of the scientific community is secretly in a cabal that is hiding the truth from everyone. If that doesn't define paranoia I'm not sure what does.
Edit:
Perhaps my biases should also be explored prior to considering my words.
I support nuclear power, because it's the only way that coal and oil can ever be truly retired and still maintain our quality of life.
I support vaccinations. Just because the disease is rare, doesn't mean you should prevent little Timmy from getting a shot. Herd immunity only works when most people do it, and Autism spectrum disorders can't be factually linked to vaccinations.
I support government imposed environmental restrictions, but hate the EPA. Stopping people from burying drums of benzyne in the desert is necessary, but telling somebody they can't build their house on this specific strip of land, while their neighbors have been there for ten years, is an abuse of power. Additionally, if whales are the only thing you can claim as a successful defense, and their population was climbing before you were created, your success rate is exactly nothing.
Finally, I support science. If your idea has facts, relevant data, and can withstand the academic Thunderdome you should be listened to. Studying gender diversity is not science, religious studies is not science, and the artistic manipulation of facts is not science. All of these people try to use science, and they're wrong. Science cannot be bent to prove your points, and doing so will get you the academic bitch slap you deserve.
