In other news, people whose livelihoods depend on agreement with the status quo actually agree

So here's we've got a completely one-sided anti-Trump article that doesn't even bother to investigate any of Trump's claims, just laugh them off.

So, apparently collecting a bunch of tweets from a person constitutes journalism now.

To response to the author's stupid link to 'explain why Trump is wrong':

Preamble - "Climate scientists say they are 95 percent certain that human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming".
My response - People whose careers and funding get better when they agree worse if they don't typically agree.  I will never see a hairdresser tell me I don't need a haircut, not even when I've just had one from a different guy down the road.

1.  That is true.  The biggest greenhouse gas is actually water vapour.  Any plans on banning water yet?

2.  So, doing to very straight-forward chemistry calculations means you get to ignore other variables?  Can we declare because of the last volcano eruption that the southern hemisphere isn't allowed to burn coal for the next 5 years?

3.  That may be happening, but we've not yet seen conclusive proof that humans are the primary cause.  Remember, scientific consensus by a group of people who'll get millions in grant money if they say yes, IS NOT PROOF.  Again, getting three hairdressers together to ask them all if you need a haircut and you'll still get a yes BECAUSE THEY ALL KNOW THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WILL GET MONEY FROM THE ANSWER IF YOU FOLLOW!

4.  Data that shows what we want it to show that only dates back 60 years (while ignoring temperature data from the last 2000 years) will only focus on relative increases in our current time frame because apparently it doesn't fit with the narrative.

5.  Those two graphs on that website only very loosely line up.  Notice how the dark lines represent a line of best fit yet if you look really closely at the thinner lines, the sharp rises and falls barely match.  Solar activity is a contributing factor, but let's remember that it's a complicated equation not: it's all coals fault, stop burning coal.  If we did, we'd spend the next 100 years being told what the next thing we're not allowed to do is.

6.  Declaration of impossible from person who then tells you what you MUST do to make it possible.  Can this person then explain why the medieval warming period happen?  Oh, must have been the pre-medieval industrial age they had stupid!

Summary:  In summary, an intergovernmental group (who were made up of very well paid people pushing an agenda) all agreed (there's that consensus again!) that humans are the cause.

Seriously, is this what passes as journalism?