Because "the huge deviations" do not actually exist?

Often the claims that the models don't match reality are based on incompetence or worse.

As a bonus here are some simpe trend comparison graphs.

Would that be the Richard Lindzen who has been funded by Exxon and OPEC, who actually does accept the basics of anthropogenic global warming, but disagrees with exactly how high the earth's climate sensistivity is (ie the amount of temperature increase you'll see from a doubling of CO2 levels). The man who been a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute, who writes opinion pieces for the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Stree Journal, and who recently joined the Cato Institute?

Not so much, no.

Unfortunately, that comparison is rarely disappassionate. In fact, some recent studies have found that the "just the facts" approach to education on controversial topics tends to backfire. Among the general populace, there a high tendency to acknowledge only the facts that support a pre-existing position and the ignore the facts that contradict it.

Frankly, that's why there is an entire cottage industry built around denying something that 97% of the people researching it have concluded is true. However, that 97% may actually be low-balling the consensus, since James Powell says he's reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reveiwed journals mentioning global warming and climate change since 1991 and only 26 of them reject the anthropogenic cause. That's would be a disagreement rate of about 0.1%.

The people most qualified to evaluate the evidence seem to be in a near universal agreement that is rarely accurately represented by the media.

"The logic of limited resources only applies when the economy is using most of those limited resources. If there are slack resources, we need merely mobilize some of the slack resources".

You are a couple steps behind me.

Everything attracts politicians. That shouldn't be a surprise, it's literally a politician's job to angle for power and votes. After all, a politician who loses an election isn't a politician, he's just an unemployed loudmouth.

That's because less than "a lot" can still be "a lot". Let's take for example, the difference between now and the 1940s, in 1940s it took 4 years to circumnavigate North America, including 3 years just for the Northwest passage, now it takes less than half a year. Being shut down for just months is a huge improvement over being shut down for years.

Actually, you can. Because surprise, surprise, the "politicians" give it to their "cronies" who give it back to the "productive sector". Spending the money three times increases the total of economic activity more than spending it once. It is pretty crazy, especially if you're a libertarian who believes the government is an evil black hole where money goes to die. The biggest problem for economy isn't who takes or gives the money, it's who holds on to it. If it's not moving, it doesn't get counted.

Furthermore, higher taxes can actually subsidize employment. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but for corporations employees are an expense that reduces profit. Since taxes are only applied to profit, hiring more employees is effectively cheaper for the owners when taxes are high (if they would lose 30% of the profit to taxes, they're only effectively paying 70% of the price of an additional employee out of the profit they would keep, if it were 50%, they'd only be effectively paying half the cost for another employee*). Since capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, when taxes are higher it can be more effective to invest profits into growing the business.

* numbers for example purposes only, I'm not avocating for any particular tax rate here.

They grow there now too.

No, actually it doesn't, it actually says the trend over the last 15 years is lower than the overall trend because of the chosen start and end dates:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade)

Very convenient, anyone who disagrees with you is a religious zealot. However, any time that you are allying with religious leaders and calling scientists zealots, you should really take that as a clue that you need to carefully examine your beliefs.

97% of the scientists who study climate change think it's happening and it's man-made, as does 97% of the published research on the topic. That leaves a mere 3% to split between the undecided and those who think it's either not happening or not man-made. If it weren't actually happening there should be a lot more research showing negative results.

They're called Tariffs. Make it cheaper to make stuff right in your own country than to make them the wrong way in someone else's country and it's a win-win situation.

It is pretty Randian: all the people who believe as I do are pure angels who earn a profit and their greed is a holy thing to be worshipped, all the people who do not believe as I do are devils who steal their profits from the holy people, and their greed is an evil, malignant, thing which should be destroyed.

Actually, it was mentioned in the notes immediately below the graph in the IPCC report where that was done.

Well according to the paper in question, they used 12 proxies, of which 9 were various tree-based proxies and 3 are ice-core based proxies.

As previously noted, 9 different tree proxies were used and they were likely the best available proxies at the time. It's not like we all have 2000 year old trees lying around in our backyards.

You might want to read this explanation of the events your mention. To make a long story short, McIntyre and McKitrick made critical mistakes that exaggerated their findings (which were published in a social science journal that doesn't do peer review). Subsequent hockey stick graphs have been generated using the same data with different methods, different data with the same methods and different data with different methods.

I would guess that the source is an anti-vaccination site.

I found this dissection of his first quote, when I searched for "Dr. Bernard Greenberg". Basically, the good doctor appears to have been most concerned with how the media was overstating the effectiveness of the vaccine.

The other two quotes may be real as well, but both come from anti-vaccination campaigns, so while the quotes may be real, they are less likely to be truthful.

Sure when you see the list of 70 articles, it looks compelling. However, a little thought should tell you that's it's pretty thin evidence for his claims. If you average it out, it's a mere 7 articles a year spread across the entire English speaking world. That not terribly surprising that some articles would be written about it, given the combination of some unusually cold weather and the not-yet-settled debate in the climate science about whether the long-term natural cooling trend (plus aerosols) or shorter-term anthropogenic warming trend would be the primary driver for climate change in the near future.

Of course, as I often find when I look at the Watt's Up blog, the evidence only passes a friendly cursory review. Several of those 70 articles are repostings of the same article in different newpapers, and even more troubling is that some of the articles in that list aren't even about global cooling. For instance, they list a 1977 Times cover story called The Big Freeze. Apparently, it's about a cold and snowy winter, not a coming ice age.

Of course, this is not unexpected. Anthony Watts always seems to hold people who disagree with him to a much higher standard than those he agrees with. Just look at his treatment of Mueller who was an unquestionable god of climate science right up until he tried to tell Anthony Watts something he didn't want to hear, then suddenly he was a turn coat who sold out.

I think you need to think about this more. You are arguing that if I want to find out what people think about an issue now, let's say slavery, I should use a sample set that is spread across the entire lifetime of humanity. Is the opinion of someone who died 6000 years ago relevant to the modern view of slavery? Similarly, why would we care about the earth's climate 4 billion years ago, when determining if recent changes are man-made or not?

When you are asked to peer review an article do you take it on faith that the author is correct, or do you check his work to see if he made any mistakes?

The claim isn't that you're perfect or all knowing, it's that you don't blindly trust your fellow scientists and instead subject their claims to scrutiny, especially when they are within your field of expertise.