“...but I also refuse to ignore science which is very well established.”
There is no way to separate science from ethics, though it is very tempting to try to do so. But far worse is agenda driven pseudo-science.
Trofim Lysenko is the best example. He created scientific theories based on Marxist philosophy, that disputed the real science before it. And because it was backed by the Soviet government, because it supported their philosophy, Lysenko was able to suppress real scientists who knew what he was doing was fake.
Sound familiar? The biggest clue that the theory that *man* is responsible for climate change, is a fraud, is that they adamantly refuse to provide a “negative case”. That is, some situation, any situation, in which their theory is *not* taking place.
Say you have a theory that if you hit a fresh chicken egg with the hammer of a claw hammer at 10 mph, putting its force into the egg, it will damage the egg. Lots of very specific criteria there. The negative case would be if this is done and it does not damage the egg.
Is that so hard? Yet they refuse to give any situation that would disprove the MMGW theory. “If ‘x’ happens, then GW is *not* man made”.
By the late 2000's we started getting winters with weaker polar vortexes (including east coast snowstorms). It looks to me like solar factors were at least partly responsible. But then the alarmists said that this was a predicted effect of AGW. I looked into it carefully and traced the idea back to a single modeling study in 2005 by an obscure group that got quoted directly and quoted by derivation. That's when I throw the BS flag at the alarmist sites (politely of course). But they mostly cherry pick the "science" in those cases.
If we want better proof against the key issue, high sensitivity, then we might only have to wait a few years. If the reliable measurements (satellite may be good) show a drop or enough steady years, that would disprove high sensitivity and the potential for "catastrophe".