I did not say anything about the climate not changing before humans, I'm not sure why you're confused by my statement, it was very concise and clear.

Evidence is here.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming? | Union of Concerned Scientists

And if you're thinking that there is a massive secret conspiracy among tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, please consider which is more likely: a vast international conspiracy among scientists or a small-scale misinformation campaign among a few dozen oil companies whose tens (if not hundreds) of billions in annual profit depends on fossil fuel consumption. Much like cigarette companies in the 60's through 80's.

Please also consider the large number of energy companies, including Exxon Mobil and BP, who are committed to maintaining Paris Accord limits, and many more https://cei.org/blog/ten-major-energ...-don%E2%80%99t that support a deal that will limit warming to 2 degrees.

UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

UCS routinely abuses and politicizes science. Its crusade against farm animals receiving antibiotics presents guesswork as scientifically rigorous analysis, and is calculated to scare the public about risks it admits are groundless. UCS helped initiate the vicious attacks on Danish scientist (and “Skeptical Environmentalist”) Bjorn Lomborg, only to be repudiated by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Industry. And in 2003, the group dressed up its “strong opposition to the US invasion of Iraq” as an exercise in science.

Conclusion paragraph:

Respectable scientists operate by considering a question, developing a methodology to answer that question, and only then arriving at a conclusion. They disdain political interference, and go to the media only when their conclusions warrant immediate public attention. The Union of Concerned Scientists stands this process on its head. It develops a press strategy first, and then conducts politically tainted and methodologically flawed analysis. After all, it’s getting harder to convince the media that your environmental scare is more lurid than the next guy’s. You need good PR. That’s why UCS partners with slick Washington PR firms — to get attention, whether or not there’s good science behind the sound bites.

Ad nauseam. Many more in the article. I just posted a part of it. You won't find a 'pro global warming caused by humans' organization that isn't highly politicized. Those scientists with no political agenda can be objective and evaluate honestly.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organi...ed-scientists/

I have no way of measuring, but there seems to be a lot of Hilly Heinder.

The earth is more or less globe-shaped, like all astral bodies of measurable-gravity size.

I can't take this any more.

Closed.