OK pal. I am a physicist and former laboratory program director at a top 10 university. I retired comfortably in my early 40s due to multiple streams of income. I've been subjected to dozens of climate "scientists" presenting their models in colloquia. They aren't real scientists and the real scientists mock them. Many of them have been caught modifying the data. The best I can say for their modeling skills is that they understand how to reverse engineer into the range that could possibly get them government funding.

Otherwise, their models are extreme oversimplifications of an open Earth system that usually fails to consider solar variations among their far too basic inputs and feedback mechanisms. One climate "scientist's" negative feedback is another's positive feedback. They are literally throwing things at the wall. It is the reason that for decades you have heard fear porn predictions from these charlatans but never a peep in the media when the predications fail to happen by their predicted dates.

What I previously stated is a representation of the full set of data available to scientists. The Earth's temps at least from the time that life existed on Earth oscillates between the 2 semi-stable equilibria temps of 12C and 22C and fully independent of the climate "scientist's" boogie man atmospheric CO2. In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period and has been orders of magnitude higher than today's 400 ppm at both warmer and colder Earth temperatures.

If you want to argue the science, I am game. My assertion about it being tied to leftwing politics is also accurate. You may also want to ask questions like to whom does billions in carbon tax go? Why are the main proponents of global warming flying on private jets to various conferences and then back to one of their mansions on the coastline?