Congratulations Marceaux, you've rustled all 130 of my jimmies.
First of all, saying that the earth hasn't warmed in 14 years isn't me being an uninformed dingus - it's a paraphrase of the IPCC's 5th assesment report's findings on warming, which were confirmed by basically everyone in saying that the earth's average temperature has not gone up since late 1990's - here's a good article from The Economist explaining the hiatus:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-beingNow, you talk about consensus. It's always thrown around that there's a huge consensus among the science community that global warming is anthropogenic and humans, mostly in the form of C02 emissions, are the cause. As Politifact says, it's a lot broader than that:
From the limited means we have to survey world temperature, we can say with relative confidence two things: that A) the earth is warming and B) human activity does cause warming. Climate skeptics do not disagree with this statement - why challenge basic data?
What climate skeptics challenge is the effect this will have on society, how accurately we can model climate changes, and whether treaties like Paris and Kyoto will be effective for the environment and for the economy. A perfect example of this is the Green Energy Act in Ontario, which crippled our energy infrastructure, drove away industry, made Ontarians at times pay triple the cost they used to pay to give subsidies to energy providers that only provide 2 percent of their total power, and put the province in immeasurable debt. Climate skeptics think we shouldn't bankrupt overselves on the altar of questionable climate models. Here's a good article that you should read on this topic:
if you say national review is a poor source without reading the article i'm banning you
But I'm just a stupid science denier.