I know I've expressed my irritation on this subject before. But..........
First I will reiterate that I do not doubt that the atmosphere has been deeply affected by man's activities. To what extent, unfortunately, only time will tell.
But what really irritates me as to those who promote the climate change agenda, is that, by definition, there is no science to it. When I hear a guy from NOAA saying on the radio, that since the temperature readings of ocean buoys are lower than expected, they will arbitrarily (my word) insert numbers that is more to what the expected as the real data, am I to take that as science? Or when it is found that "data" is inserted, not as data entries, but as part of the code for computer models that will affect the outcome in a way that is more to their liking, should I take that as science? How about when a climate professor, who is critical of it all, expresses that there are many, many papers submitted that are critical, but they are mostly rejected for peer review because the peer board is all in on this climate change 'science', should I feel reassured that it is all objective? Science should be all about attacking a thesis until it stands or falls. But, instead, when I see that there is a big monetary interest pushing this 'climate change science', it smells really bad. And, instead of these interests seeing to it that the 'science' is clean and true, when it is questioned, roll out the emotions. If one is a 'climate denier', he is worse than Hitler. Really???
Again, I really don't doubt that man is polluting, to a negative effect, the atmosphere, to the harm of our home. But, personally, as one who loves science, calling all this 'climate change' fiasco science is insulting.