Covered this a good bit yesterday. You are also going to get links like "climatescienceisahoax.net" and "whatsupmybutt.com". Always consider your sources, and your sources sources. You can feel free to discredit Cook and the IPCC all you want. There us data to analyze, though. That data points to human impact on the environment, which potentially related to climate. Itching is conclusive either way, though a majority of climate scientists do believe humans have at least a "weak" impact on the climate. Perfectly reasonable stance. Is it enough to upend government and create an international tax, fuck no.
Happy hunting!:
How IPCC came up with 97%, after dismissing 66 percent of the papers submitted on the subject:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many
IPCC misquoted climate skeptics in their 97% figure to further their claims:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Patrick Moore on Climate Change and CO2:
https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc
https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc
Christopher Munckton explains the problem of the IPCC consensus, and the global community's agenda to push for international treaties based on the IPCC findings:
https://youtu.be/MxRk-9o9QOA
Stanford's Hoover Institution finds conflicting CO2 and temp data based on glacial core samples. IPCC models conflict with actual recorded data:
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
Some scientists insist Climate Change is cyclical:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy
Contrary viewpoints:
PBS series explaining climate change claims:
https://www.pbs.org/video/its-okay-be-smart-understanding-climate-science/
Refutations on consensus claims:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm