The jury may still be out on global warming or global climate change but the question is whether they ever should have been in, with regard to it being man-made.
This abbreviated quote seems to downplay the gloom-and-doom stormcrows:
“The IPCC estimates climate sensitivity at 1.5C to 4.5C, but that estimate is based on computer climate models that failed to predict the absence of warming since 1995 and predicted, on average, four times as much warming as actually occurred from 1979 to the present. It is therefore not credible. Newer, observationally based estimates have ranges like 0.3C to 1.0C (NIPCC 2013a, p. 7) or 1.25C to 3.0C – with a best estimate of 1.75C (Lewis and Crok 2013, p. 9). Further, “No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of 2°C would be net ecologically or economically damaging” (NIPCC 2013a, p. 10).”
The full article describes the findings in summary but has some reference links. I will repeat my stance on the subject. I have absolutely no doubt that the climate is changing. It has ALWAYS been changing. It will continue to change. However, it is not at all clear that Man has had much to do with it. The articles that have been predicting doom and gloom since Al Gore's alarmist statements have been guilty of questionable math practices, of drawing results from poor (or no) correlations. They have been using questionable models that have been shown to be HIGHLY inaccurate.
I am a firm believer in science. I am absolutely opposed to "consensus science" if the consensus is based on poor science. The ONLY person (thing) with whom (which) you need consensus is nature itself.