So, in overview...... I generally enjoy the attempt to be a contrarian, in almost any subject...... even in religion..... but especially in science. Many people just flop down on their knees and do some sort of oooh.... or ahhhh.... as they boy repetitively to the great God of Science, at whatever "Science" has been made out to be for the popular mind or for the unwashed masses of humanity. I've sat in on a few research report seminars and heard the quibbling among "The Scientists". From that standpoint, I would infer that "Settled Science" will go on being a myth for some time. So here's the kiddy breakdown of the issues I think have not been adequately researched, all of which have been assumed to be irrelevant in the hysteria of Climate Change. (1) Space Environment. The nature of the areas we are impacting as we move on through space. We have a certain orbit around the Sun, which we know something about. We know about the other planets and their movements, we know about the Moon. We know a very little about solar "wind" and the Sun processes which appear to present some cycles which affect us.... changing radiance flux, changing particle wind flux, particle character. We also have an orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy, in which some speculate some cycles due to changing relations to other galactic realities, like debris fields, hydrogen clouds, and radiative regions. We know nothing, practically speaking. We must accept that even the Milky Way Galaxy is on a journey..... into regions we know little about. We look out with our telescopes of different sorts, and see stuff that is beyond our expectations. Being on this ride is not something people with great normality biases can expect to be "normal", really. We have geologic history or cataclysmic events like huge chunks of whatever colliding with us. Then there is the space within the Earth we know little about...... Science is changing in this field, quite rapidly. No room for "Settled Science" here. Within the past 50 years, the much-derided science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions has nevertheless been gaining ground. This is the Cold Fusion Science our petroleum political establishment intended to sink the bottom of the sea, never to rise again. But recent data relevant to internal earth nuclear processes has come up, within the past year, that forces scientists to revise their ideas about the Earth Core. Now they are scrambling to explain about half of the Core Heat balance. Known fission, as measured by certain radiative measures, does not account for half of it. Residual heat from the Earth's original molten ball theory, cannot explain it..So at last, serious mainstream Science publications have admitted publication of the first LENR proposal for a reaction that is possibly happening within the Core. An iron-hosted hydrogen fusion reaction going on under extreme pressure and heat..... a sort of halfway reaction between Cold Fusion and unassisted Hydrogen Fusion believed to be the heat engine of the Sun. But this reaction has not been an "Earth Constant"..... it is believed to have started a mere 2 billion years ago.... and we have no idea of how it is changing now. Stuff is moving within our molten insides. And while the iron core is believed to be a solid, under the pressure imposed, it is absorbing hydrogen into the crystal lattice of the iron, it is being proposed. So, in terms of fissionable nucleides in our composition, we have U and TH, and K, with known half-lives, but whose decay rates do vary in terms of neutron fluxes and such. These fission events give off radiation that can escape to where we can measure it, and so determine the current rates. The current rates are only about half of the current heat being generated. So, while Scientists consider the Earth's heat neglible in comparison to the Sun, it can no longer be assumed to be a constant. We need to know how it is changing. 1 C difference under the sea will be "Climate Changing". But overall, I am not really a Science Skeptic. I am just saying we don't have enough understanding of the whole situation. Politically, I am opposed to globalism and socialism as top-down political "causes" because we just don't have people we can trust that much to run the world. I assert that the Climate Accords are scandalously corrupt deals that favor some few "winners" in the Grand Chase for Global Monopolies.