Sure, we could be exacerbating natural cycles, but according to the large volumes of data we do have it's pretty clear that humans are a major contributing factor.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
How many papers have you read? There are quite a few that refute your standpoint. When I say quite a few I am really taking the piss: every single scientist, and by that term I mean people who spend their lives studying things, who are responsibly qualified and who use the scientific method which involves observation, analysis and reasonable conclusion.
I'll grant you that there are many sources of bollocks that might distract you but if you stick to decent, authoritative sources you will discover that not only are things as bad as you think they are, they are actually worse.
Personally, I'm a bit of an optimist and I think we can pull back from the brink (whatever that is) but the world is gong to be a bit odd in say 100 years time for humans.
Science isn't consensus. And besides, we have nothing firm at all.
We don't have enough data to guess next month's weather let alone the possible effects in 10+ years.
Weather is very different from climate. As an example, for many regions of the world you can accurately predict the average rain fall per year, but it is nearly impossible to predict whether it will be raining at noon in 7 weeks from now.
Maybe a better analogy for this audience: Predicting statistics does not require predicting particle orbits. Insurance pricing does not require being able to predict the health of each individual person.
For this audience, try load averages. Your 1m load average will be significantly more volatile and unpredictable than your 15m load average.
And an even greater hubris to ignore the pretty vast dataset we do have and go diametrically against the conclusions it suggests.
It's also pretty funny how that greater hubris is exhibited mainly in a particular country, and a specific party in that country which has a lot of ties/donations from oil companies. Especially when other branches of the government are preparing for the results of man made climate change. Makes you think, doesn't it.
They also prefer to buy gas-guzzling SUVs, use millions of gallons of water to maintain lawns in the desert, redirect water to their large population centers to do so, and line up to buy the new iThing each year (tossing out the perfectly good old one in the trash).
All whilst maintaining the third lowest CO2 emissions per capita. Incredible!
The coastal cities aren't, but the southern central valley cities (Bakersfield, notably) are in the desert.
You can find a list of California’s largest desert cities at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deserts_of_California, and it’s pretty marginal. Note Bakersfield isn’t even on that list.
The list is incomplete; it seems to include only cities in the named deserts, not cities in desert climate; much of the San Joaquin Valley, especially the southern part, is desert—but not in a specifically named desert—that is irrigated for agriculture.
Plenty of people agree that there is not enough data to draw conclusions about such a complex issue. Way to make this political for no reason.
Can you imagine why that particular line might be the one espousing climate change denial and skepticism, uniquely in the developed world, whilst simultaneously preparing for it?
Should you not be skeptical of where your skepticism comes from?
What people, climate scientists?
It takes a very special kind of hubris to be critical of the science when you apparently get confused between climate and weather.
The manufacturer (IPCC) says that based on their best information and models if you do not get your oil changed in your car every 10k miles it will lead to increased engine wear which can lead to other problems. Every reputable mechanic (climate scientists)agrees that 10k is a reasonable estimate and that people who drive over that limit will lead to even worse results on average.
Now lets say you've got a smart uncle Jim. He's a damned good electrician and he's been driving his car over 10k without changing his oil for years and he says his car is still running great. He brings it into the shop and the mechanic says his mileage is down and there's some wear on the engine that they can see. Since your uncle Jim can't see the wear that these mechanics see he accuses them of trying to rip him off and drives the vehicle even farther past the 10k miles just to prove them wrong.
This is the climate change debate in a car analogy. There's tons of variables that can affect how long a car lasts and no good mechanic can tell on what day a car will break, but over a long enough timeline they can say for sure that it will result in degraded performance.