I love how you are oblivious to the contradiction inherent in this statement. You are 100% bought-in to the propaganda. Science is not a matter of opinion - it doesn't matter how many % of people agree. What matters is whether there is a testable, falsifiable theory. And with Global Warming, there isn't. Every model out there is laughably simplistic, there are ongoing revelations about things that affect climate, cloud coverage, albedo, and currents, which are totally unaccounted for in every model in use currently. The 'science' is an absolute failure.
99% of a scientific community coming to a consensus on detailed climate data is more than just "opinion", so there is actually no contradiction there. The scientists are only stating what the data and laws of physics depict. Also, the fact that you claim the American Chemical Society is there to push propaganda makes it clear you are grabbing at air for a rebuttal. As far as temperature trends go, you are correct in that future projections are indeed models and no model is perfect; however, they are very far from being "laughably simplistic" as you make them out to be.
That being said, even if all the temperature models were flawed, the mechanisms by which global warming through greenhouses gasses occurs can be reproduced in a laboratory and were even well understood and documented before the concept of global warming due to humans was relevant. The fact that certain gasses adsorb and reflect solar energy at certain rates is a very testable theory; and we do indeed test it all the time. Using these measurements and using mathematics to apply them to our earth makes it very clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the release of these gasses will cause more solar energy to be retained. The fact that historical data for concentration of these gasses matches up almost exactly how we expect them to with historical temperature data makes such a compelling argument for human caused global warming that ignoring it is entirely reckless.
As far as the economic models, once again, laughable. Produced by people that utterly failed to predict the crash of 2008 and the subsequent doubling of the national debt under Obama. They have zero credibility.
They did actually predict the enormous costs of implementing Obama's Policies (Source. The CRFB obviously would not have predicted a market crash that was caused by private investing and loans, because they do federal budget studies. Even if you were correct in your statement, you are dismissing the professionals that know most about economics because they cannot predict every little uncertainty (i.e. the impact of loans and trading that is done in complete privacy) when Trump's policy intentions were made clear in completely certain terms.
And? You don't think people that want help should get help? Now you're just being obtuse for the sake of it.
Let me explain a little better on this one because I understand that one sentence seems like he is talking about changing any sexual behavior, which is a great idea for people who want/need it for good reasons. But he was specifically talking about federally funding programs which specifically deter people from engaging in behaviors, such as homosexuality, that are associated with higher HIV/AIDS risk. No, I do not believe it is fair or equal to use tax dollars to fund programs to attempt to turn gay people straight if the same programs were not available to straight people who wished to be gay.
More complete quote: "Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."
Even if that example doesn't seem make clear his feelings on the matter, all you need to do is look back at his legislative decisions to understand why people are very very concerned. He voted to: Ban marriage equality, keep the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies, make violent crimes against individuals based on sexuality non-hate crimes.
Yes, and Trump is on the record saying that he thinks it should have been a States rights issue. But it isn't, it's settled, and Trump has made it clear that he is not intending to reopen that can of worms. So what's your point? Someone said some stuff you don't like?
I understand that trump believes it should be a state-issue and that is completely fine. Truthfully, he hasn't really done anything directly homophobic at all as far as I am aware and I really like that about him; however, he has also made it clear that he has no problems appointing people who who have actively gone out of their way to create laws to actively discriminate.
This has absolutely nothing to do with people saying things I don't like and you are, once again, side-stepping the point with childish comments. They are more than welcome to their own ideals and opinions and if they believe that homosexuality is wrong then that is their business, but when their policy-making actively goes out of the way to make sure that gay people do not have the same rights and freedoms as others then it becomes problematic. Just as they are welcome to believe what they want and to live how they want to live without negatively impacting other people, so should everyone else. That is my point.
As for your source, Politi'fact' is a partisan organisation run by the Tampa Bay Times that openly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. There are plenty of independent criticisms of it out there, I don't feel the need to elaborate any further.
Washington Post is a rag owned by Jeff Bezos who, once again, is entirely partisan and a public Hillary Clinton backer, and the quote provided is based on hearsay.
Zero credibility on any partisan matter.
Keep in mind what I was referencing from them:
Quotes that are widely used by many news sites that have not at all been argued to be false.
The fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee decided not to appoint Jeff Sessions as a federal judge due to past discriminatory behaviors
You are acting as if either of these facts are affected by the viewpoints of the authors. There is a reason why I specifically did not quote the Authors' words, because they might indeed might have their own interests.