Ok, enough with the euphemisms. I'll be blunt.

great. I prefer that.

If the evidence contradicts the theory, then the theory is incorrect. If the evidence contradicts the theory and you have low enough morals, you might falsify the data. But data having been falsified does not mean that the theory is incorrect.

if a theory isn't supported by evidence then it's a bad theory. period. start over and hypothesise a new theory.

falsifying data if the plan of last resort to save a theory, and save face.

it proves the theory that the theory sucks, and the scientist is worse. it's disgraceful.

Science does not prove that theories are wrong. It states that it's extremely likely that they fail to predict reality. There's a subtle difference; it's important to keep that in mind.

the scientific method disproves +99.999% of all scientific theorys.
if a theory isn't supported by any/all evidence then it needs to be modified; at a minimum.
most theorys are scrapped; as most fail round 1 testing. no supporting evidence.

They are manufacturing a strong trend to make is appear to be CO2 related. It is a fraudulent claim.

Yes, people have been massaging the data to make it seem CO2-related. To be perfectly honest, we don't know what the problem is. But it's our most likely guess, and any action is better than just ignoring the problem or, worse, acknowledging the problem but just waiting for God to save us or something. However, because it's not proven, politicians aren't doing enough to try to stop it. If we reduce CO2 emissions, and the data doesn't adjust within a couple of decades, then we can probably rule that out and make a new hypothesis before we're all dead.

I shared your exact sentiment until about a year ago. I came across the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 plans. This is the force behind the climate change scare. It's goal is to inventory all resources, life, and people on the planet. 100% global control of 1 works government, that will be rolled by corporations. That's the end game if this push.

most people have been frightened into surrendering all alternate options. there are other more probable theorys.

since the industrial revolution (+120 years) the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from 00.0350% to 00.0410%. can this truly be significant? half of a thousandth percent!?

the climate has been changing for millennia.
we exited an ice age roughly 10,000 years ago.
this trend does, and will continue.

this evidene is not anthropogenic. the seas will rise. nature will continue to happen around us.

the real threat to humanity is UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. it is absolutely crucial that everyone understand why climate change is being pushed.

here is an excellent video that scratches the surface of the global that to humanity.

Agenda 21 & Agenda 2030 Exposed ~ Rosa Koire.

if you think that what I've stated has credibility, then please watch this 20 min video.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of this post, as you are basically highlighting my previous bet-hedging line if reasoning.

The important part is to not die.

The reason that the scientists who are falsifying data are getting support is probably because they're trying to add pressure to the politicians to do something about it. It's activism. Not the kind I support, since it'll make things worse in the medium- and long-terms, but I honestly don't know what else would be effective.

If you're playing Russian Roulette with bullets and blanks, and don't want to die, you take out as many rounds as possible.

(Plus, probably those companies are "greener" than their rivals, or want to get some legislation through that relies on the pressure to reduce emissions, or something.)

Also note that there often isn't just one cause; I'd bet on greenhouse gases having something to do with it. And also note that we don't have much data pre-industrial revolution. We do know that our planet's average temperatures are hotter than they've been for centuries, but that could just be a coincidence.

Maybe.

I respect your honesty, and I agree mostly.

please look into agenda 21 and agenda 2030, and weigh the evidence. decide for yourself.

if you've never heard of it; then it'll either blow your mind, or you'll deny it (which is understandable). unfortunately, it is legit.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21)

pm me when you've had a chance to digest this new info.

I'm going to post the agenda 21 and agenda 2030 link.

IMO you have a reputation as a critical thinker. adaptability when provided conflicting evidence is the critical thinking crossroads.

I look forward to hearing from you (hopefully).

Edit:. Added summary purpose of agenda 21.