Well this is an attempt to repost this from yesterday. Is so called Climate Change a farce or a fact? The political and somewhat religious groups say it is and yet the actual Science does not align to this narrative. Sadly there are not two types of Science those who align with a narrative without actual facts or twist the facts to align with the narrative that I will call political science. Then there are the actual scientists who deal with actual facts.

First, lets define what Climate Change is. It was called Global Warming then Global Cooling then back to warming from the political left. Some suspect this is an approach to get rid of capitalism and replace it with communism. Others may say this is a new religion of extremism of mad made concepts. However, over the Earths birth (Instream warming) and stayed at 80 C or 176 F for the first 4.5  billion years (https://socratic.org/questions/what-was-the-temperature-of-the-earth-when-it-first-formed).

According to NOAA they noted the following:

"Our planet seems to be in a cycle of constant change. According to an article by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Climate.gov in August, 2014, our planet likely experienced its hottest weather millions of years ago. One period, which was probably the warmest, was during the Neoproterozic around 600 to 800 million years ago. Approximately 56 million years ago, our planet was in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as global mean temperatures were estimated as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit, over 14 degrees above current levels. Ocean sediments and fossils indicate that massive amounts of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere.

By contrast, evidence shows there have been at least five major ice ages on Planet Earth. One of the most well-documented and largest, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago, is called the Cryogenian period. Glacial ice sheets likely reached all the way the equator producing a "Snowball Earth." Scientists believe that this massive ice age ended due to increased underground volcanic activity and, perhaps, a much warmer solar cycle." (http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm). Some like to use averages, but this has it downsides depending on the narrative they are attempting to align to as noted from space.com:

"Absolute estimates of the global average temperature are difficult to compile. Global temperature data comes from thousands of observation stations around the world, but in some regions, such as deserts and mountaintops, stations are rare. Also, different groups, analyzing the same data, use different methods for calculating the global average. These differences in methodology sometimes produce slightly different results." (https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html)

As noted by the New Scientist the Earth has been far warmer than it is now as noted below:

"First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.

It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods – and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia – are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.

Within the past billion years, there may have been one or more periods when the whole planet was covered in ice. This “snowball Earth” phenomenon remains controversial, with some evidence suggesting that there were at least some areas of unfrozen land and water even at the height of the freezing (read more here, here and here). It is clear, though, that from about 750 million to 580 million years ago, the Earth was in the grip of an ice age more extreme than any since.

Why did it happen? The spread of ice produces further cooling by reflecting more of the Sun’s energy back into space. But ice on land blocks the chemical weathering of rocks that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which leads to warming as levels rise.

Snowball Earth may have been possible only because the continents were clustered on the equator, meaning CO2 removal would have continued even as ice sheets spread from the poles. Only when most of the land was covered would greenhouse gases have started to build up to levels high enough to overcome the cooling effects of the extensive ice cover." (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/)

So it does to make sense that the Earth has seen much warmer and much colder temperatures that we see today even accounting for the extremes. Also as noted above the causes are very complex and not just man made. It is also a fact that C02 is plant food that plants need to survive. So if we cut-down more and more trees, and build more cities atop of plants would this also be considered man made event driving more CO2 in the Earth atmosphere as well? Yet the political left ignore this little fact as well.

So is Climate Change a farce or a fact? I would say in general that climate change is a fact from the birth of the Earth to it's destruction in about 5.5 Billion years when our own sun turns into a Giant Red. Mankind before this will see temperatures well about anything seen now that will start to boil off the seas in about 4 Billion years from now as the sun starts to expand. As to the degree of the impact of man has on the Earth's Climate? I would say that anything has an impact and the degree of Man's impact is not an easy one to determine due to the number of factors from sun rotation, Earth rotation, sea patterns, volcanic and other natural events, and so many other factors not listed here for brevity. Basically it is how much solar radiation hits the Earth and how much leaves the Earth. There are so many things that can impact these two as noted earlier. But as far as man's impact it is not yet determined if this is a very small degree or larger. The Political left only focuses on gas power cars and yet continue to cut down green land for more city space and cut down more trees for wood to build their cities. Thus do we need to rethink the large concrete and steel cities we have today? And yet we are seeing more volcanic activity as well. What would the impact be if a super volcano like Yellowstone decides to become active? What impact will that have on the Earth when most of it will be blanked by volcanic cloud and ash? Those who assume one this is the only factor are not Scientists and pushing Political narrative. The truth is much more complex and true Scientists would say we do not have enough data yet and some of the actual data shows the issue is not as bad as the Political narrative is projecting. For example, how many times over the last several decades that the Political narrative said the Earth would be destroyed in the next 5 to 10 years, seas would raise and flood all the coastal cities, and all the ice caps are melted. Yet the South pole is growing and the North is somewhat detracting for now and yet the temperature seems to be somewhat steady and not raising as some on the Political narrative has been pushing.

So are you on the side of Truth that need more time to study the many complex factors, or do you side with the Political narrative to destroy and control a population via communism?