This piece is anti-science.  The question of today is not whether there is a discernible contribution of human activities to planetary warming.  The author must know this and thus presenting it as a debated scientific question is fraud and thus anti-science.  No the questions today are much harder.  What will be the impact of global warming and in a world of approaching eight billion humans, what can realistically be done to eliminate human generated climate change.  The science surrounding the predictions of what a few degrees of warming will do to the world is much more complex than the prediction of the warming itself.  Countries like Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. would benefit greatly from warming.  Greenland could truly be green.  Tropical forests are lush.  Increased CO2 may add vigor to plant growth.  The real science is in determining consequences.  Trump and crew apparently believe that a warmer world will not be so bad.  That is a tenable scientific position.