I understand “the science.” You do not. 🫵😉 First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although we have no idea precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution in the early part of the record; fragmented data, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that I am convinced have not been thoroughly corrected for in the instrumental temperature record. But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to our emissions of CO₂. 🌡️📈 So what? 🤷‍♂️ Second, contrary to what you (and everyone else) has been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming as it pertains to temperature change in the global lower atmosphere (troposphere), which extends from the surface up to an altitude of ~13 kilometers, on an average basis. 🫆 That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by CO₂ forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) to that of internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing. A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008). ✅☁️ 🔗link.springer.com/article/10… / open-access: psl.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.… Yes, you read that right. All warming, natural or man-made, results in: 1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics. 2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans. An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can rule that out as a cause because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️ Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming. Correlation doesn't always mean causation. The 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 I have seen some anthropogenic “fingerprint” is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉 First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area. Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over the course of a calendar year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature, Earth must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space. 🔗nature.com/articles/ngeo1580 / open-access: researchgate.net/publication… Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to warming in the troposphere, where we live. 🔗ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/… (p. 357) In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is coming upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964) and have stood up to the test of time. 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has indeed been observed since the late 1970s, although the rate of cooling has slowed over the last 25 years. 🛰️ 🔗nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/… But, yes, I agree that this cooling in the stratosphere is most likely the result of CO₂ emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. ✅ Again, so what? 🤷‍♂️ What happens below in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have to cloud feedbacks and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget. And, their response to warming are not very well understood (and by extension, are not modeled well at all). We do know, theoretically, that the direct warming effect of RF 2×CO₂ in the lower atmosphere is actually relatively small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020). 🔗arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098 However, amplifying (or dampening) feedback which kick in as a response to a change in RF mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the 1°C figure from Wijngaarden & Happer (2020). Three pieces of critical information remain unknown: 1⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know because the coefficients used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcing are computed by forcing modeled data to match observations, then running that model against the same set of observations that the model was calibrated to, which is circular reasoning. 2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is. 3⃣ Is global warming a net benefit or net drawback to human civilization? To break it down: 🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated. 🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2°C to 5°C. 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downl… (pp. 44-45) However, many recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have estimated ECS to be much lower than the IPCC AR6's “best estimate” 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo… 🔗mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11/161 🔗link.springer.com/article/10… 🔗acp.copernicus.org/articles/… The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷‍♂️ What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021). 🔗nature.com/articles/nclimate… / open-access: nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/51… 🔗annualreviews.org/content/jo… However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 ± 0.48 W/m². 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, so what? That doesn't mean it is or will be an existential crisis. While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two the tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has no effect on the climate, or (b) will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably in the middle somewhere and that's where I reside. In any case, 🔹There have been no meaningful increases in the frequency, intensity and/or distribution of most types of extreme weather events that can be tied to GHGs. The only causal links we can somewhat determine are with heavy rainfall events and heatwaves in some regions, but even there, it is slight enhancement, and natural variability is larger than the forced signal. As for wildfires, forest management and human ignitions are the largest driver. Improving on those fronts will more than offset any increase due to warming and/or regional drying. 🔹The worst impact from global warming is likely sea level rise (SLR), admittedly, but the slow creep of it makes it a very manageable problem. Some European countries have mitigated this with seawalls. That can be done here in the States as well. 🔹It stands to reason that benefits of higher CO₂ levels have been neglected: It aids in global greening; increases crop yields / production through fertilization and longer growing seasons (although a lot of that is due to genetic modification); and fewer cold weather-related deaths (cold kills more people than heat on most continents). Regardless, the human condition is expected to improve by nearly every metric by 2100. 🔹The proposed “cure” to global warming is likely worse than the disease itself. Everything humans do requires energy, so reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for our needs must be met with an alternative that is sustainable for base load power and affordable for working class and lower-income families. Solar PV and wind cannot get us there. How's that for science? 🧪

This Guardian headline says we have just “Ten years to save the planet” from climate change. 😱 Oh wait, silly me, this article is more than 18 years old. 🫣

If the data doesn’t match the theory, change the data.