I predict the snow pig will be the final post on this thread.
I agree.
When I was in college, man made global cooling was going to have Scandanavia covered with glaciers by the year 2000. The people pushing this were looking for the developed world to stop CO2 emissions and compensate the poorer countries of the world for the damages they were going to see from this change. Somehow, no plans seemed to exist for where all the Scandanavians were supposed to flee to. At the time I would have been happy to take in 3 or 4 good looking Swedish girls.
Cooling stopped and without missing a beat the same people (led by Dr James Hansen of NASA) switched to man made global warming. The cause and objectives are the same. I can't help but be skeptical. One big difference is I am not able to to take in the good looking Swedish girls.
Unfortunately, it has really degenerated into a combination of politics and professional reputations. Enough climate scientists have totally signed on to global warming and climate study grants from governments have effectively shutout any that haven't. No warming for over a decade, warming models totally off and other predictions sorely missed have not changed much for the true believers.
I have a hard time supporting anyone that asserts anything in science is "settled." "Settled science" once proclaimed that the earth used to be the center of the universe, there were only 4 elements, life could spontaneously appear, ether filled the space between the planets, intelligence was primarily determined by race and many others I'll not list.
Today's weather isn't climate. A hot day in the summer doesn't prove anything. A cold winter storm doesn't either. I have a hard time believing that any true climate shift can be "proven" in less than 3 or 4 decades. As to whether it is man made or not would take IMHO far longer.
P.S.
I work in the energy business and there are many regulations being implemented by our loving and caring EPA to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The definition of what constitutes a greenhouse gas has changed a bit over time but it is pretty much whatever the EPA says. This costs the consumers in the US significant money by requiring less efficient processes or added capital expenses. I've looked at the concept of "zero emission" natural gas power plants and this would at least double the cost of electricity.
I have been involved in non-USA projects, carbon capture projects have been justified in third world countries entirely on the basis of selling the carbon credits to Europe that requires these which can be taken anywhere in the world. When the carbon credit market fell apart, these same countries dropped the carbon capture projects completely or just the carbon capture part of other industrial projects. The third world countries don't give a rats behind for reducing greenhouse gases.