So ... study, read, educate yourself.

> the common-sense claims I've heard about how water is a better indicator of climate change than carbon

I haven't heard that one yet. Maybe this will answer it?

https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-inte...

> climate science defines sweeping portions of government policy leaves me estimating that the fudge rate is above standard acceptable parameters

Politics has not yet started taking climate change and overshoot seriously. I won't comment further on the matter.

> Consensus is about the most anti-scientific disposition possible, by my estimation, and I'd like to hear discussions from a more diverse range of viewpoints than the stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV that colleges tend to churn out

Ah, consensus, the ultimate boogeyman of free thought, right? Because clearly, when a majority of experts in a field agree on something based on, you know, data and years of rigorous study, they must be shackled by groupthink. God forbid they reach a similar conclusion through independent research and critical analysis. No, let's ignore decades—or even centuries—of academic advancement in favor of "a more diverse range of viewpoints," irrespective of their empirical validity. After all, who needs peer-reviewed evidence when you've got opinions?

And let's not even get started on the "stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV." It's almost like educational institutions aim to base their teachings on reason, empiricism, and the scientific method rather than catering to every fringe ideology that claims to have found 'The Truth™.' The audacity!

But hey, if you're not a fan of consensus, I've got some "alternative viewpoints" on gravity and heliocentrism you might be interested in. Why let overwhelming agreement among experts ruin a good debate, am I right?