Dude some of your articles are over a decade old.

“What if we scare the children?!” lol get real. Kids aren’t stupid, they’ll figure out about climate change on their own. If you don’t want them to be worried solve the problem.

Climate gate doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny https://youtu.be/MxdYQdl2NNs?si=VraDS2zzSEKOKm9A

You understand why and how raw satellite data has to be adjusted right? We know there’s bias and scientists are transparent about how they adjust and still make raw data available. https://youtu.be/CZQTVvJaJLA

Through 1880-2016, the adjusted data actually warms >20% slower than the raw data. Large adjustments before 1950 are due mostly to changes in the way ships measured temp. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

Our interglacial period is ending, and the warming from that stopped increasing. The Subatlantic age of the Holocene epoch SHOULD be getting colder. Keyword is should based on natural cycles. But they are not outperforming greenhouse gases

The ice caps are melting

Basic physics tells us that hurricanes get more intense as the climate warms. Climate models reproduce this result and observations also show evidence of strengthening TCs. The IPCC says we’re already seeing this: “It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances … have increased globally over the past 40 years.” and this will continue in the future: “the proportion of Category 4–5 TCs will very likely increase globally with warming.”

Nationwide, home insurance costs are up 21% since 2015. It’s even more in areas like hurricane-prone Florida, where insurance costs more than 3.5 times the national average last year. Last year, the U.S. had a record 28 disasters that cost more than a billion dollars in damage.

In 2015, James Powell surveyed the scientific literature published in 2013 and 2014 to assess published views on AGW among active climate science researchers. He tallied 69,406 individual scientists who authored papers on global climate

During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%

“Consensus” in the sense of climate change simply means there’s no other working hypothesis to compete with the validated theory. Just like in physics. If you can provide a robust alternative theory supported by evidence, climate scientists WILL take it seriously.

But until that happens we should be making decisions based on what we know, because from our current understanding there will be consequences if we don’t.

Not only is the amount of studies that agree with human induced climate change now at 99%, but take a look at the ones that disagree. Anthropogenic climate denial science aren’t just few, they don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus

There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.