And I'm not attacking the messenger because you seem to have no message. You are only being a contrarian claiming the data doesn't exist to begin with.
So yeah, whatever man.
I give you this one. There is no absolute _proof_, we only have scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority. Granted, they all can be wrong, thats the good thing about science.
Having said that, just out of curiosity watching you discuss:
Would you agree that _just in case_ all these dudes are roughly right, we all should make at least good faith attempts to stop whatever we're doing currently or change it so that it doesn't make the situation worse?
Best case, all the scientists were wrong and we made the world a cleaner place with less pollution and sustainable tech instead of using up limited resources wherever possible. Worst case: they were not only right and even underestimated the pace (happened multiple times already), but we took measures just in time and can solve the problems just-in-time.
I mean, we could expand the problem easily to not only include warming and its effects, we do have straight pollution problems right in front of us. Toxic substances sifting into nature, rivers dying, agricultural wastes poisoning the seas, piles of garbage in poorer countries where new smallpox variants can emerge, hostile bacterias that are immune to the last antibiotics we have against superimmune things, ... .
I think even if the whole global warming story would be some super world conspiracy or mathematical error at the end, many measures to reduce that thing would also help against very obvious problems we also have (or start to have).
Of who? Climatologists? They're biased and when they email each other privately they express grave doubts, stress over their own bias and dishonesty and point out that there is no consensus. Outside of climatology there's even less consensus. So claims of consensus aren't true, but consensus of people heavily biased by financial and career concerns is deeply unconvincing anyway.
>> we all should make at least good faith attempts to stop whatever we're doing currently or change it so that it doesn't make the situation worse
No? Come on, "stop whatever we're doing" is being treated as equivalent to shutting down large parts of civilization with no alternatives in sight, it's stupid to do harmful things if they aren't necessary. And all the concrete proposals are deeply harmful, even if you ignore the massive mental health impact that climate pseudo-science is having on young people.
>> we do have straight pollution problems right in front of us. Toxic substances sifting into
Sure, and those problems are probably more important to focus on than climate stuff, the fields and underlying research claims are different in these cases.
>> many measures to reduce that thing would also help against very obvious problems we also have
If it were true, nobody would care indeed, but most climate proposals are extreme and harmful. Just look at geo-engineering for an example of where this can lead.
I know, the article I linked to is on the NASA website. That's exactly what I'm saying - guys like Hansen were distressed by the lack of warming despite their predictions to the contrary and then changed the data to create it, mostly by cooling the past. It's visible when comparing graphs of the same time period from older and newer documents. That one is an older document. You seem to think there's a contradiction here but I don't see it.
Glaciers, how do they work? Dunno, let's ask the archaeologists who know that in the past it was massively warmer where glaciers are found today:
http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Sch...
Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today.
But that was in the Roman era so it can't have been CO2 making that warmth. Also very important: 4-7 degrees hotter but no runaway climate self-destruction.
Then you go off on some jibber-jabber about conspiracy theories. That's what always happens when people can't accept the truth on this topic, they try to shoot the messenger. All you need for this outcome to occur is the mundane reality that without predictions of doom nobody would care about climatology. It doesn't matter if the researchers are American or European or Chinese. Their income and prestige depends on claiming that they (a) understand the climate and (b) know how to explain all changes and (c) that those changes are controllable with sufficiently big actions. Unfortunately none of that seems to be correct.