VincentRJ

Excellent point, but it doesn't apply to me, because I used to accept the alarm about human-caused climate change when the issue first became prominent in the media, a few decades ago, and when I was frequently listening to media interviews of certain famous scientists, such as James Lovelock who were explaining the potential problem of rising CO2 levels. I was rather puzzled at the time why governments were not taking more immediate action, such as providing more assistance to the development of electric vehicles, and setting a moratorium on the manufacture of ICE vehicles, which the UK has now done decades later. However, because I have a curious and questioning mind, as well as a good understanding of the 'methodology of science', I began searching the internet, and Google Scholar, for answers to issues and facts that were never mentioned in the media and during the interviews of climate scientists. It soon became very apparent that there was an obvious bias in the media when reporting the issue of climate science, and/or interviewing scientists on the issue of climate change. Their purpose seemed to be to remove all doubts by excluding the reporting of any contradictory studies, exaggerating the potential harmful effects of rising CO2 levels, and completely ignoring the beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere, which clearly helps to green the planet. In other words, I changed my mind as a result of my own enquiries into the issue, instead of just accepting what is reported in the media, such as the frequent report of a 97% consensus that rising CO2 levels will produce catastrophic changes in climate. As Yellowtail suggested, perhaps you could provide some details about the scientific process that arrived at that 97% figure.

We all rely upon limited information. There are no exceptions, hence my humorous comment about God. The amount of published, peer-reviewed information on climate related matters, including the geological history of past climate changes, evidence from proxy records such as tree rings, sediment analysis, ice cores, and the massive amount of modern data from from temperature readings, satellites, and sea buoys, is far too great for any person to read in a whole lifetime. If you are unable to see the political bias in the climate-change mantra, and the economic biases of those employed by government-funded organizations which were created because of a perceived alarm about human-caused climate change, then I can't help you.

It's so sad that governments seem unable to learn from history. Cambodia is one of the few countries that has a recent history, just a few centuries ago, of a total collapse of a great and magnificent civilization caused mainly by natural climate change. Around the same time that the Medieval Warm Period in Europe was transitioning to the Little Ice Age, the great Khmer civilization was experiencing 'unprecedented' droughts and floods. For several decades, the monsoons never arrived, and masses of people began leaving the area in order to survive, including members of the 'upper class'. When the droughts were followed by unprecedented flooding, yet more people fled to other parts of Cambodia, probably Phnom Penh. There's archaeological evidence that those who remained tried to control the flooding by dismantling certain temples in order to use the stone blocks to construct more dams. It was then the Thais invaded, which was the final nail in the coffin. The message here is that governments should prepare for a repetition of abrupt changes in climate that have occurred in the past, instead of fooling the population that any changes in climate are due to CO2 emissions, and that such changes can be prevented by reducing CO2 emissions. ????