So: Your understanding that you can't prove yourself but which you take on faith from a politicized system of academic grants and government loans to fraudulent businesses like Solyndra is "scientific fact" and my skepticism is merely a "political belief".

I'm not really taking anything on faith here. Anyone with an undergraduate-level physics education should not have a difficult time making sense of all of this. The Greenhouse Effect was first theorized by Joseph Fourier in the early 19th century, and soon thereafter became established science.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you bring up Solyndra, seeing as they never claimed to be an authority on climate science, just producing PV cells. Are you arguing that climate change was invented in order to motivate grants to research, and ventures like Solyndra, which otherwise may not have received them? If this is the case, then yes, I would say that your skepticism is indeed a political belief.

It makes me sad that, in 2018, people still think that assertions about the future climate made by predictive computer models is seen as a "fact".

we had predictive models of CO2s greenhouse effect decades ago, the predictions are coming true before our eyes already.

If you're running around 2018 saying "global warming is not a fact" I would urge some light reading on your part, it's really quite good writing in its own right:

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/clim...