I am not a geophysicist, or an atmospheric physicist. Im aware the the overwhelming majority of people who have undergone rigorous academic training have concluded there is anthropogenic climate change.
So I cannot debate it, like I dont debate string theory vs loop gravity, or the best mechanism for a covid vaccine. But if there is a strong concensus by experts in any of those fields, I do know enough that I believe them over raving idiots on facebook.
So, how do you explain that most of the planet was warmer a 1000 years ago than now? Or times 100's of thousands of years ago, when the average globabl temperature was 5 degrees C higher than now. Or why now data shows that Antartic Ice shelf is growing?
The so called overwhelming consensus is a group of left leaning scientist who in concert with left wing politicans who are furthering the Climate Change narrative for a wealth redistribution effort for 3rd world countries. About 10 years ago, did you happen to notice that the term global warming morphed into ther term "climate change". That was not an accident. Because if you apply causal statistics to what is happening, it is not warming at a rate or slope that meets that theory. Furthermore, do you realize that the data gathered at NWS data reporting and collection stations has been influenced by urban/suburban creep. When the NWS built these station, mostly in the '50's theu were located in rural areas outside the "heat island" effect. No one cares to bring up that point.
Secondly, about drinking the kookaid. The core of envirowhacko scientist has created an environment of harrassment and heresy, if any research climatoliogist dares to question the Oracles of AGW. One of my favorite example is the late great Dr. William Gray of Colorado State. He at the time was the greatest and most intelligent person on the planet as far as understanding and predicting climate trends. If that name does not sound familar, you might have heard of him otherwise by his Hurricane Prediction skills, which were pretty much the gold standard for years. IN some of his parting shots at the scam, he make accusations of falsifications and skewing of data. And at the direction of the "Oracles", the meteorlogical community turned on him. Dr. Neil Frank is another who has had the courage to speak it. But bottom line..... If you don't drink the koolaid, you will be treated as a pariah among your peers.
3rdly, what really is long term climate about? A 100 years of data, is a mere blink of the eye in the scheme of matters of how Mother Nature conducts herself on our planet. Truthfully, man thinking he has the abilty to skew long term weather trends is laughable. Sunspots, OTOH, are another matter. In fact, we had huge solar cycles in the '90's that may have had some short term effect. Lately though, we are seeing more slumber from Sol, and if you want a really candid opinion. I fear a colder climate due to reduced sunspot activities than I do wilth silly man made global warming.
