"greatest scam ever perpetuated on mankind" is how you put it.
Hmmm so we have held countless world leaders forums on this with the latest been Paris. So a con to all those leaders. The sad thing is no significant action will be taken because of commercial interests since the Bruntland Report of 1987 - the forerunner to Kyoto back then and here we are in 2015 still yet to develop appropriate responses. By the way it has got hotter without a doubt - it has also rained less as well (i.e. how many of you recall water restrictions in the 70s compared to now). Facts are ice glaziers are melting. Simple as that.
IMO, world governments seek to protect their own interests (as do business people) as they don't want to do anything if it reduces competitive advantage. In economics climate change/pollution equals externalities and generally speaking externalities are paid by society not the cause creator/ polluter etc etc (hence maintaining comparative advantage). The whole debate on climate change of late was we won't do anything unless China/India do something and IMO the denials have another hidden agenda here - denial means society continues to pay whilst business profits from its mess. In the debate on climate change it usually transcends to its impact on jobs in a given country - here it is about the impact on the coal and LNG industries, as well as the agricultural sector, and regional population centres. All real impacts so without job prospects elsewhere in the economy I can see why the government drags its feet on the issue (particularly given the budget costs of seeking to open up new industries to reduce job losses and the fact the new world order is that budget deficits are a bad thing).
I guess 100 years of data is not much in any event as history through ice cores studies shows the world cools and heats up over time. The only difference here is that ozone depletion and greenhouse gases in the last 50 years have been linked to the activities of man. 99% of scientists saying it is real and this is good enough for me - it is real. To put it another way this debate is not dis-similar to the vaccination debate - 99% of people say vaccinations are good, 1% say bad and I guess to put this into context I say most climate change denials here would support vaccination (based on what many of you said in past threads on that subject). You beleive in what you want to be believe because at the end of the day it is about economics and comparative advantage (the quick buck) and your country won't give that away (i.e. use of coal etc) when the costs can be externalised (society pays) rather than be internalised in the production process (i.e. how many right wingers go ballistic at the mention of a carbon tax, a pollution tax etc etc - say no more they want everyone else to pay for them making a fortune). And finally I am sure that when the doctor tells you to take this pill when your really sick and it will make you better, and then you google what you are taking and find some articles that say hey this pill is bad for you from doctors who are suspect in their view, that you will still take the pill.
