Re: problem is real but pretty easily solvable
" Even the most ardent anti-Earth campaigners have stopped claiming that it's cooling, really."
Ach, a believer. Nice. I see I have to start from bottom.
Science is based on non-belief. Either you know or you don't know and none of believers need to know, belief is enough. They also try to convert others to belief, it's important to them: Facts just are, no-one tries to feed them to you. That's problem nr 1: Way too much propaganda without facts.
Also calling the basis of science, scepticism, "anti-Earth" just reveals the religious status of claims. Burden of proof is on anyone who claims that CO2 alone is warming Earth. So far there's no hard evidence on that. That's problem number 2.
Also no, they haven't yet started to do so and that's different. Change of course is real, climate isn't constant, never has been. Global average is also cyclic, has been so far and no doubt will be in the future too. About 70 year cycle is just too long for average man to realize.
I'm old enough to remember when UN (now known as IPCC) predicted in late 70s new ice age by 2015 "if cooling doesn't stop". Well, cooling stopped.
Because of CO2? No proof of that. Then why? Most probably the Sun but that's non-canon and doesn't fit into beliefs so not accepted. Problem number 3.
Also "global warming" which happened to use coldest year in last century as a 'normal temperature'. and reference point. Smells very bad from the beginning and not an iota of science involved. Also now re-written as 'not coldest'. Nice, but still Problem(TM) nr. 4.
Only thing that's actually is rising, is the difference between announced global average and reality. NASA got caught on 'correction factor' added to all measurements and did they stop when they got caught? No, they increased the correction factor again. And again. Nice.
NASA alone provides more than 50% of all measurements used by IPCC, not much 'correction' is needed. Like +1C every year. Problem nr. 5 here.
Also, if you haven't noticed IPCC forecasts +0,6C _in next 100 years_. Not average per year but cumulative total. Every time someone predicts a chaotic system to 100 years ahead, they are not guessing, they are lying. And politicians, in this case. That alone is Problem(TM) nr 6.
But anyway, if that's your definition of 'warming', you may keep it. I call it 'no change' and as climate isn't and won't be constant, that in practise means cooling.
By IPCC, not me or you. IPCC is a political organization, not science. But conviniently, with new term of 'climate change' cooling is also because of CO2 and CO2-taxes will stay. You can bet on that.
Also, correlation between CO2 alone and announced global temperature is basically not more than a guess, so I'm wondering why anyone would believe, not only CO2-based warming, but also man-made warming, while totally ignoring the Sun, water vapour and methane. Problems 7, 8 and 9.
The Sun, yes.
Anyone knowing thermodynamics knows that a solid in vacuum tends to warm when you increase the heating power. The Sun had directly measured 2% increase in power about 2000-something and IPCC says 'doesn't have any effect' like a politician would say. Absolute bonkers.
That power surge btw. ended few years ago, therefore cooling is inevitable. 2% btw. means ~6C. That's a lot.
Too many things totally ignored and too convinient excuses from politicians: That's not science by any realistic measurements, it's politics.
Anecdote time: Here in North we had a warm period, about that time, 2000-something: +30C in summer and dead grass. That time came and went: Now it's barely +15C in summer, 4th summer in a row. Is that the thing you call 'climate change'? Grass doesn't care about weather so that argument is void.
And people in US have snow everywhere. Call it warming if you want, but I'm still the sceptic who says it's politics, not a scientific fact. Not even science really: Research is not science, it's just reseach. Problem nr 10.
Science answers to questions like 'why' and 'how', _based on proven theory_. Which climatologists don't have: Numerical model is not a theory, it's not even hypothesis, it's a curve fitting problem. So they've no idea, literally. And we have a problem nr 11.
IPCC nor anyone else haven't proven anything so far, not even a good hypothesis exists. Even Darwin had more proof for his theories than IPCC. Despite being one man and IPCC has budget in billions (when local government spending is also counted).
Also what I do? I have these K-joints in steel beams and I break them to see if the theory fits the practise and what is the error margin. After first 50 we can say that theory possibly is correct. Not my theory and I can just reject it by results not fitting in the theory: I can't prove it.
Compare that to total guessing of climatology as a whole is and I'll say none of them _know_. A lot of guessing, results not fitting into explanations and hand waving instead. And politics, of course: Money and power.
That's the motivation of IPCC and any government: Money and power.
Have you any idea how many billions have been collected so far as CO2-related taxes? And you believe there's actual science behind that? Why would it be needed, any sheeple believes just because authority says so. It's simple like that. Also Problem(TM) nr. 12.
Any reason to collect more taxes are good reasons for government. That reason being factual is totally irrelevant, it's enough that some people believe it. Like you do. I hope you are getting paid for it like priests usually are.
I'll start to believe once we have qualified (by actual scientists, not 'researchers') answers to all 12 problems.
Otherwise thanks, I had a reason to write down the actual scientific problems whole idea has. I didn't remember that there were so many.
And summary: Change is real (of course it is, it always is, also when cooling) but temperature correlation to CO2 is non-existent, hockey stick curve is and was BS from the start and too much political money to make anything believable. Either you spew propaganda like the others or get fired. Proper science is never possible in poisoned environment like that.