OK, I'll give this a try:
First off, the term “climate change” is a complete misnomer. Climate has always been changing, even since before human beings began walking the earth. To proclaim that world temperatures were somehow “normal” before the climate change movement began is pure silliness. To somehow believe that we can control climate through our production of carbon dioxide is equally silly.
The factors that affect temperatures are varied and complex, and science cannot measure and predict them all. With carbon, for example, only a fraction of this lies in the atmosphere, the vast majority of it resides in plants on the surface of the planet. To somehow focus purely on the CO2 in the atmosphere while ignoring the complex relationship on the ground (tilling during farming, for example, produces a huge amount of CO2, moreso than anything else) means keeping blinders on with regards to how the whole system relates with one another.
Accurate world temperatures only came about after weather satellites were placed in orbit, around the 1970’s. Any temperature readings prior to this is suspect. Any claims of temperature readings dating back to hundreds and thousands of years is done purely by proxy data, which are merely estimates, and are not at all accurate.
Most climate predictions are based on computer modeling, which are nothing more than just fluid dynamics. These “readings” are based purely on the data one inputs into the system. Modeling cannot predict when clouds form, solar flares, or volcanic eruptions happen—and these factors are extremely important with determining temperature. These models are always manipulated to suit an agenda and will tell you what you want to hear since they are based on pure estimates and assumptions of whoever runs them.
The fact is that the world’s average temperature has gone up by 1 degree in the past 50 years. Whether this is purely the result of human beings, there is no definitive proof. While it is certainly possible that human beings may have been the cause, it may also be a purely natural occurrence, and falls within the margin of error.
And this brings us to the alarmist belief that if temperatures keep increasing by a mere 2 degrees, it will somehow trigger a worldwide catastrophe, is pure nonsense. There is no proof that increasing temperatures will do this. Average world temperatures increase by more than this during summer cycles, and no catastrophe has occurred.
The environmental movement that is focused on climate change is now a billion dollar industry, with media outlets blaming every single instance of extreme weather occurrences on climate change, despite the fact that these links are tenuous at best.
Also, the claim that there is a consensus amongst scientists that humans are causing climate change is also dubious. The 97% claim is based on a 2013 study by John Cook, of which only 34% of the papers that he surveyed held a position on climate change, and out of that only 1% disagreed. Cook therefore deducted the negative papers from the positive and came out with his 97% consensus number, completely ignoring that fact that 66% of the participants did not respond to his initial requests.
So in the end, here are the facts: climate is changing, and humans may be affecting this change, but to what extent and as to whether it can be predicted is not known.
The climate change movement is sowing fear amongst the world population by making all sorts of bogus apocalyptic claims of worldwide catastrophes, none of which have come true. In 1989, the UN predicted that the Maldives would have been underwater if something wasn’t done by the year 2000. In 2007 Al Gore predicted that all the arctic sea ice would have melted by 2014. None of these things happened.
Climate concerns have affected world governments too, with countries mandating the use of green energy like solar power, wind farms, and electric vehicles. While everyone wants a cleaner environment, the problem is that these green energy alternatives are more costly and less efficient, and to build them would make the environment even more toxic than compared to fossil fuels.
So what’s to be done? More practical solutions against natural disasters would be to build better infrastructure, like more robust buildings against earthquakes, and stronger dikes around flood-prone cities. With regards to energy, nuclear power is statistically safer and more reliable than any other alternative that’s out there.
And with regards to reducing CO2, just plant more trees, and practice no-till farming techniques. These simple adjustments provide better solutions to what’s happening right now.