Is Climate Change a Contested Narrative within the Scientific?

Is climate change a contested narrative within the scientific community? If so, why is there skepticism?

Q. Does the climate change skepticism movement have any merit? Well. You could consider the following. Barometric pressure. Gravity. Hydrostatic equilibrium. Spatial volume. The ideal gas laws dictate that in a body of gas, the temperature is directly related to the volume, the pressure, and the quantity of gas. Have you EVER seen any climate science that takes fluctuations in spatial volume of the atmosphere into account? (The answer is no). Meanwhile, we know that the volume fluctuates. And we are confident the primary cause of the fluctuations is solar activity. We know that the 11.5 year solar cycles cause fluctuations in volume. We do not know whether the Grand Solar Maximums and Grand Solar Minimums cause fluctuations in volume, but it sure makes sense that t would, considering the short cycles do. How well do we understand gravity? And the resulting barometric pressure? We do NOT understand gravity. We cannot manage to include it in Quantum Mechanics. We just plum “left it out”. Left it out of our most successful, most accurate, description of existence. From CERN. Screenshot source. The Standard Model How close are we to understanding gravity and being able to describe it mathematically? Here is a list of efforts. Quantum Gravity “candidate theories”. Source. Quantum gravity - Wikipedia So… No. It cannot be claimed that we understand gravity. This should be clearly obvious. And in our efforts to understand gravity, we have invented extra dimensions, extra universes, “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”, but to no avail. We do not understand gravity. Gravity is the sole cause of barometric pressure. Gravity is the fulcrum in the balance between pressure, temperature and volume and we do not understand it. Our understanding of physics, when you drill down to the nitty-gritty is incomplete. That is why there are people running around claiming we live in a “multi-verse”. That there are an infinite number of “parallel universes”. Others are claiming we likely exist in a computer simulation. Others claim the universe was made by a deity. And nobody has been able to conclusively prove that is wrong. And among that confusion, a movement has been created. Climate and environmental alarmism. Claiming that humans are guilty, humans are causing significant change, and the change will be catastrophic. As though t actually understand the factors that affect the atmosphere well enough to support their claims and assertions. Make no mistake. Climate “science” is NOT a science built from the bottom up, supporting claims and predictions and assertions with solid understanding. Climate “science” is an observational “science”. Based on observations that are much too short term. There are processes involved that are fast. Daily the atmosphere expands and contract. Every 28 days the Moon has orbited the Earth. Every year we orbit the Sun. Every 11.5 years, or so, the Sun reverses magnetic polarity. Over multiple cycles, multiple decades, sometimes centuries, the Sun has weaker and stronger periods. We have isostatic rebound affecting Earth’s continents over thousands of years. We have multi-decadal oscillations in our ocean currents. And climate “science” is based on confirming warming as predicted DIRECTLY FOLLOWING A 25 year COOLING PERIOD. And when climate “science” was first made into a “thing”, some, predicted continued cooling! That is called “hedging the bet”. You know, have ten people predict a coin-toss. When it comes up heads, or tails, multiple people are going to be able to claim “Just as I predicted”. But with climate, the odds are better than a coin toss. After a cooling period will come a warming period. That was what was mostly predicted. And that is what has happened. That is a piss poor way of conducting “science”. No control over the variables. No repetitions of the experiment. One 50–50 prediction is used as the “confirmation” of the entirety of climate “science”. Now you may ask. What would be the motive for creating climate alarmism. (And the other alarmisms). So take a step back. What does the climate alarmism movement claim is necessary? Do you agree with this list? Wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, and other renewable energy sources. Solar panels on lots of home rooftops. Increased energy efficiency. Better insulation Better windows and doors More energy-efficient appliances. Carbon tax. To discourage frivolous use of energy/fuel. Penalties if you buy gas-guzzling vehicles. Credits if you buy fuel-efficient vehicles. Credits if you buy electric vehicles. Utilities to install smart meters and use time-of-use billing. And do you think these goals are actually about “saving the world”? Well, that would be very wrong. I got the list of goals above from the 1977 Jimmy Carter US Energy Independence Plan. Here. National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program. Those action items/goals were created to help change the situation so the US could become less dependent on Arab-OPEC Oil Cartel. At the time the Energy Independence Plan was drafter, the US was importing 16 million barrels per day. The US was dependent on OPEC oil. And OPEC had already imposed embargoes 4 years earlier. OPEC had already jacked the price per barrel of oil up from $3 per barrel to $42 per barrel. And OPEC was threatening production cuts and supply limitations if the US military did not do what OPEC dictated. The list above had ZERO to do with climate. It had everything to do with oil. The production of oil. The trading of oil. Control over oil. The power to set the price of oil. The list is about oil. Not about “Saving The World”. I recognize that many people are convinced that the world, or humanity needs saving. I recognize that many people are convinced there is a deity, and life after death. “People” are not that hard to convince of things. Which is why t cannot be trusted to hold legitimate opinions. Instead, go back in history. Start with the “Seven Sisters”. Seven Sisters (oil companies) - Wikipedia Learn about the formation of OPEC. OPEC - Wikipedia Learn about the 1973 “Energy Crisis”. Learn about the history of production, and pricing. Recognize that OPEC “weaponized” their control over oil production. Recognize that the actions supposedly necessary to “Save The World”, happen to match exactly the actions claimed necessary to defend against Arab-OPEC coercion. Do all of that, and you will have a much better understanding of why there are many people not caught up in the climate alarmism movement. Q. Does the climate change skepticism movement have any merit? A. Of course it does. That is obvious and provable.