These are postulated by smarter people than you or I. I don’t necessarily subscribe but have posted to illustrate that the dominant narrative is not the sum total of the state of climate science.
But if you’re as bound to the emergency narrative as you are to supporting Richmond over another club, you’re not going to consider any other possibilities.
Always open to considering other possibilities Lee, but the sites/scientists you end up quoting usually end up as crackpots or outliers. Outliers are fine, sometimes they prove right, so they have to be considered.
But the overwhelming evidence - and I'm not talking about models here, but actual observed changes in the contemporary environment physical evidence in terms of land/air/sea warming, tropical lines pushing further away from the equator, extremes of temperature, increased tropical disease, reduced rainfall, glacial retreat, extremes in forest/bush fires globally, increased length of fire seasons in both hemispheres, coral bleaching, loss of kelp forests, change in agricultural seasons all point to change having occurred and still occurring.
But the denialist argument that you continually fly is "the models are slightly wrong", or "it's a UN conspiracy" or "it's a CCP conspiracy".
Of course you completely ignore measurable increases in deaths. Because your narrative is "nothing of significance is happening", so lots of brown people dying at slightly increased rates in countries far from our comfortable existence doesn't matter.
