@LameBorzoi
"Challenging the dominant paradigm is how science progresses!"
I know! Exactly! That is precisely the point I have been trying to make throughout our discussion!
There are two fundamental aspects to the climate issue - the science and the politics. These two facets, whether we like it or not, have become inexcusably entangled - this is having a negative impact on our ability to assess levels of certainty, with respect to climate science. If you try to understand the concerns of eminent scientists such as Dr Steven Koonin, Dr John Christy and Dr Judith Curry (referenced upthread), or maybe the late Professor Robert (Bob) Carter (to name but a few of many), you will recognise that there are significant career impacts for those who have chosen to inject a more realistic, balanced scientific perspective into the overarching alarmist narrative. At one point, you inferred that Dr Christy should be taken less seriously because of his age - dismissing him as a "boomer", if I remember correctly. I think it is notable that many of the most vocal sceptical scientists tend to be older - perhaps more likely to be financially secure and able to take professional risks, maybe because they have the credibility and security of having had established careers. Even outside the academic field, look at televised science entertainment - anyone remember Johnny Ball and David Bellamy? They were massively popular at one point, but were 'cancelled' (before cancelling became a de rigueur term) because they could not completely sign up to the climate change script - perhaps they should have played the game and enjoyed some of Attenborough's success! https://www.carbonbrief.org/johnny-balls-climate-science/
"You are confidently stating things that just aren't true."
What things would those be? If you are referring to the points subsequently made in your post, I will now address those. Please appreciate the fact that I have not adopted an absolutist standpoint on any particular scientific 'fact' - only on the position that science should be conducted in a depoliticised environment and that rigorous scrutiny and challenge of the evidence and the socioeconomic ramifications of policies such as 'net zero' should be thoroughly examined in a completely balanced way, before being implemented. Is this a perspective that you take issue with?
"The key principles behind the understanding of anthropogenic climate change are very simple."
No they are not! It is a point that I have tried to highlight a number of times. You seem to be under the misconception that the science really is simple and settled, and that the mechanisms of climate science are known. The fact that CO2 is a radiative forcing agent is indeed a physical fact, more or less unanimously accepted within the academic community - what you would likely refer to as a consensus...it underpins the oft trotted out statistic of "97% of scientists agree"...to mention this at all is straight from the Propaganda Playbook: Chapter One 'How to set up a strawman argument"!
The issue is not with the accepted conventions on the application of physical laws at the most basic level. The problem lies in the complexities of the atmosphere itself, and the interaction and feedback relationships between a huge number of variables and climatic drivers. In this respect, even though politically it has been done, you just cannot separate anthropogenic climate change from overall climate change - it is impossible until you have a firm understanding of the entire system and all of its drivers - natural and manmade. We simply cannot model all of these. There is a massive difference between having a grasp of the physics of individual components of the atmosphere at their most basic level and understanding how they proceed to interact with the hundreds of other components of a complex climatic system. Models have to be overly simplistic to operate at a level whereby they attempt to simulate circulation patterns at a global scale. It would be impossible and impractical to increase model resolution to a meaningful scale, with respect to the actual complex drivers of climate systems. CO2 is known not to be the most important climatic driver, yet the political context has elevated its position - making so many other key atmospheric drivers (such as water vapour - a far more powerful greenhouse gas) play second fiddle to it.
Who are climate scientists? As I have already mentioned, I know that when I was at university, it didn't really seem to exist as a standalone discipline, the way it does now. You cannot be an expert in the climate system - expertise needs to be drawn from a wide number of scientific fields, from fluid dynamics to solar physics. Is there sufficient oversight of the sum total of the increasing body of knowledge? I very much doubt it - and when individual eminent scientists like Koonin have been in the position to carry out a time consuming audit of current scientific findings, that underpin the IPCC position, their conclusion has been that there is a significant gulf between the accumulated evidence and the headline summaries that are used to drive political, economic and behavioural changes. That remains a crucial part of my contribution to this discussion, which I don't feel you have responded to.
" We know that wheat, rice and maize, which feed a huge proportion of the world, don't grow well outside preferred temperature and moisture conditions"
We know that the planet has greened massively over the modern era, thanks to the carbon dioxide fertilization effect (CFE) - biomass is at significantly high levels, crop yields are up, thanks to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 - so it certainly has not all been bad. Where are the models to show the impact on our ability to produce enough grain for current high global population levels, if we continue trying to limit CO2 output? Regardless of the politics, surely that is a scenario that should be being calculated as part of the decarbonisation package?