Why do you place so much importance on and continue to post links to this opinion piece by Warren Meyer, considering that it's full of innacuracies and unsourced claims?

we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in 1880 were 291ppm, compared to 392ppm today - that's an increase of 35%.

What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes.

'Catastrophic warming' implies a value judgement that is not part of the scientific consensus on climate change.

one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe.

[citation needed]

one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.

That is not an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on climate change, which states that sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2.

Skeptics, however, point out that the computer models were built by scientists who have only a fragmented, immature understanding of complex climate systems.

Ad hominem.

Moreover, these scientists approached the models with the pre-conceived notion that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures, and so it is unsurprising that their models would show CO2 as the dominant factor.

[citation needed]

In fact, the period 1978 to 1998 featured a number of other suspects that should have been considered as potentially contributing to warming.

[citation needed]

If CO2 is but one of several causes of warming over the past decades, then current climate models almost certainly have to be exaggerating future warming.

That's flawed logic, based on an incorrect assumption that CO2 is the only driver of warming considered in models of the climate system.

Only by attributing all of the past warming to CO2 can catastrophic future warming forecasts be justified.

False. The scientific consensus states that: "Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation."

even the 0.7C of measured historic warming is well under what the climate models should have predicted for warming based on past CO2 increases and their assumed high sensitivity of temperature to CO2 levels.

False. You need a much longer time frame to measure equilibrium climate sensitivity to an ongoing forcing.

to believe a forecast of, say, 5C of warming over the next 100 years, we should have seen 2C or more of warming over the past century.

[citation needed]

the evidence continues to accumulate that these forecasts are wildly overstated.

[citation needed]

the overall trend in global temperatures has been generally flat for the last 10-15 years, and have remained well below Hansen’s forecasts.

False. The overall trend in global temperatures has continued to rise, and Hansen's 1988 forecast remains accurate within a margin of error.

global warming has been rebranded by alarmist groups as “climate change” and then more recently as “climate disruption.”

False. The term "Climate Change" has been in use since the sixties, and it was the Bush administration that oversaw it's rise in mainstream political consciousness.

no mechanism has ever been suggested wherein CO2 can cause climate change in any way except through the intermediate step of warming.

A warming climate is a changing climate.

In an Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warned of the world being battered by more and more Katrina style category 5 storms; in fact, 2009 and 2010 have seen record low levels of global cyclonic activity, despite relatively elevated temperatures.

Records indicate that category 4 and 5 hurricanes as a percentage of hurrican activity is increasing, which supports Gore's statement.

The truth of the matter is that ice is indeed melting and sea levels are rising today – as they were in 1950, and 1900, and even 1850 (long before much man-made CO2).

False. There has been a change in the rate of ice melting and sea level rising, which are increasing due to the warming of the climate.

Alarmists like to call climate skeptics “deniers,” usually in an attempt to equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers.

False. Climate denier is a descriptive term for a person who denies the evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

what skeptics deny is the need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use – a step that will likely be an expensive exercise in the developed west but an unmitigated disaster for the poor of Asia and Africa.

[citation needed]

These developing nations, who are just recently emerging from millennia of poverty, need to burn every hydrocarbon they can find to develop their economies.

[citation needed]

Studies that have avoided Mann’s mistakes have all tended to find the same thing – whether looking over a scale of a century, or millennia, or millions of years, climate changes absolutely naturally. Nothing about our current temperatures or CO2 levels is either unusual or unprecedented.

[citation needed]