Some of the “experts” like to quote science, but they have applied the real scientific principles very selectively, avoiding or simply ignoring a vast body of known interrelations in nature, that over time have held up to scrutiny.
Not that any theory or postulate is ever immune to further scientific inquiry, and may in fact be set upon its head by new data collected, but the data collection so far in “climate change” has been highly weighted in favor of one outcome, with the total denial of other equally or even much more important data.
Nobody, it seems, wants to study the very real effects of water vapor on the climate, and yet, it is vastly more important than the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which in fact is plant food, not a pollutant. As a further programming note, carbon dioxide simply does not have the characteristics necessary to be any kind of agent for heat retention in the atmosphere.
I agree there are just too many variables to simply jump to a particular conclusion. The weather is tricky enough, let alone long-term climate behavior. Do we really know for sure what a little extra CO2 will do? Not likely. There could be hundreds of unexpected results. Real science is a slow trial-by-error process that liberals are trying to turn into a magic crystal ball. And the ball must tell them exactly what they want to hear or it’s not science to them—it’s “denial”. They’re the ones in denial.