Science, real science, is never settled. The best the human mind can come up with is a working hypothesis, which is tested and retested with varying parameters. And if some of the parameters come up with unexpected differences, repeatedly, then the hypothesis is subject to change or extensive modification, to fit some explanation to the new data. But there is never a “final answer”.
And of course, there is always the arbiter of all this contention - how much is it going to cost? Cost/benefit ratios are real, and for the economics to work, it must always be a positive ratio.
Exactly right alloysteel. The thing also to point out is that per your diagram, “climate does change”. The question is how much is influenced by humans and how much is natural change.
More importantly is it worth the cost to try and alter something that is going to naturally change anyway (regardless of the miniscule millions of a percentage change in CO2)?
The modelling studies that have “”PROVEN”” that masks and lockdowns work and the run by the same idiots that use them to prove that CO2 production by humans is driving climate change.
I personally would rather we work to get rid of true toxins in the environment....real pollution like plastics in the water, run off of nutrients that create algal blumes, smoke, etc.