"If you’re asking me, I’ll go with the climate peer-reviewed scientific studies of this phenomenon
The climate alarm community usually dismisses Richard Linden of MIT. One claim is that he was once funded by Exxon and is therefore not to be trusted and or credible (wrong incentives).
He presents a paper here in which he emphasizes that scientists/politicians/media/public continually obsess about CO2 as the one driving factor in climate, when in fact there are a myriad of other factors.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/131570/13360_…
"Most people here will understand incentives, and in academia the incentives to get published and get funding are very powerful. Most people like to keep their job!
From the Lindzen paper above:
"Between 1988 and 1994, things changed radically. In the US, funding for climate increased by about a factor of 15. This led to a great increase in the number of people interested in working as ‘climate scientists’, and the new climate scientists understood that the reason for the funding was the ‘global warming’ alarm.
Munger: “Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the results.”
Lindzen on why global mean temperature anomaly record can be misleading:
"At the center of most discussions of global warming is the record of the global mean surface temperature anomaly—often somewhat misleadingly referred to as the global mean temperature record. This paper addresses two aspects of this record. First, we note that this record is only one link in a fairly long chain of inference leading to the claimed need for worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions. Second, we explore the implications of the way the record is constructed and presented, and show why the record is misleading.
This is because the record is often treated as a kind of single, direct instrumental measurement. However, as the late Stan Grotch of the Laurence Livermore Laboratory pointed out 30 years ago, it is really the average of widely scattered station data, where the actual data points are almost evenly spread between large positive and negative values.
The average is simply the small difference of these positive and negative excursions, with the usual problem associated with small differences of large numbers: at least thus far, the one degree Celsius increase in the global mean since 1900 is swamped by the normal variations at individual stations, and so bears little relation to what is actually going on at a particular one."
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publica…
Lindzen has reported that some of his graduate students couldn’t land jobs at prestigious academic institutions following graduation because they had done research questioning various aspects of the global warming hysteria. And understandably so, “the science is settled” so why question it.