Of course climate changes. It always has.

The cause and the rate matter. And when saying the "climate has always changed," it's important to understand the context. For example, here are recent temperatures and model projections in context of the end of the last glaciation. See included links for more details:

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=17875775

 We can't predict the weather accurately next week. It's the height of arrogance that "science" has reached consensus on the weather 100 years from now.

Climate models aren't trying to predict the whether. Rather, they project long term changes in global averages. You seem to be implying that since we can't reliably forecast weather 10 or so days in advance, we cannot accurately project climate conditions years in the future. We also cannot model the exact trajectories of each of the gas molecules in the container, but that doesn't stop us from developing useful models like the ideal gas law for macroscopic properties like temperature and pressure. Similarly, we cannot forecast the weather 50 years in the future, but we can accurately project macroscopic properties like average global temperature, sea level, etc. For example, global temperature projections beginning in the year 2000 are right on target:

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=19213339

There is no hard data supporting the theory that man is the main cause of warming or that anything we do will change what the weather will be in the future.

There is mountains of hard data. See here for an introduction to some of it:

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=11825773

That anything we do will change the outcome directly follows from demonstrating that we are the cause.

It's all theory and bogus models supported by doctored bias data.

As I showed above, the models, though only part of the evidence behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are far from bogus. Also strange how scientists "doctor" the data to reduce the overall warming trend in the instrumental record (figure only to 2016, though the major differences between raw and corrected data is far in the past). 

 Political/economic motivations are at the heart of it.

Basic fundamental physics like the first law of thermodynamics are at the heart of it. To the contrary, political motivations are at the heart of AGW dismissal:

.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-44347-002

After all of this disagreement, we both probably agree that the Green New Deal is not a good idea. That makes it all the more important for conservatives to support viable market-based solutions, for example:

.https://www.clcouncil.org/media/2017/03/The-Conservative-Case-for-Carbon-Dividends.pdf 

Science hasn't reached consensus. Not true impartial science.

AGW has reached an extremely strong consilience and preponderance of evidence, as I briefly introduced above. If you worry about impartiality in climate science, fossil fuel funded groups routinely arrive at the same basic conclusions as mainstream climate science:

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=20850655

Most of the great advances in human history were achieved by radicals, heretics, skeptics - deniers. Not sheep who were afraid to step out of line.

A scientist doesn't make a name for themselves by simply agreeing with everyone else. They do it by showing where everyone else is wrong. The more solid the evidence behind the core position, e.g. in climate science, the more likely that disagreement happens out on the fringes of knowledge. 

In reference to past advances in science, overturning the status quo requires presenting clear and powerful evidence to the contrary. AGW contrarians have failed to do so. If you disagree, I invite you to present your argument to the contrary. 

Finally, this kind of thinking comes dangerously close to this:

.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit