The so called modelling and the famous hockey stick graph to push the warming narrative.
... except that through the climate gate scandal, they were caught fudging data to fit their narrative by omitting inconvenient data.
or the so called model that its prediction does not match reality which raises the question of its utility and the premise of its case
No matter how misguided or moronic is with the notion of flat earth, how is it even relevant to our conversation about climate change? Please point out the nexus.
Seriously. Point out to me the scientific data and I will point out to you the correlation between sun spot activities and the weather.
Is that simply an assertion?
your premise is based on the presupposition that it is broken. Is it?
In any intellectual debate, the most basic structure is that you make a case by stating your underlying premise and whatever associated facts or data there are in support of your argument. If I disagree with the warrant of your case, it is my job to offer undercutters or defeaters to undermine your argument. So what is the case that you are making or is it just some incoherent rants?
Seriously. You guys are insisting that climate change is man made and you are questioning whether it should be the arbiter. Maybe as you suggest, I am truly in an alternate universe because words no longer have meaning.
Show me the evidence and not assertions.
No downside to acting - seriously? There are no free lunches. It is estimated the cost to implement the Paris Accord is up to €46 trillion. What do get you in return? A 0.05 degree improvement.
If you are going to spend €46 trillion, make sure you get your facts right and not rely on some modelling that is highly questionable based on fudge data.
You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
There are some scientists who support a contrary view, that global warming is not human-driven and is not occurring, or more slowly than others say. But that is the nature of science, with regards both past observations and future possible scenarios. The fact that there is a contrary view does not undermine the bulk of evidence in favour, beyond a reasonable doubt.