How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted
"To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most 20th-century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will, therefore, be large and will happen very soon, simply isn’t supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning.
We “know” that humans must have caused some warming, we see warming, we don’t know of anything else that could have caused the warming, so it adds up.
However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2—none.
...In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations.
There is, however, evidence to the contrary. 
...In 2008, I showed, using various data sets that span as much as a century, that the amount of heat going into the oceans, in sync with the 11-year solar cycle, is an order of magnitude larger than the relatively small effect expected simply from changes in the total solar output.
Namely, solar activity variations translate into large changes in the so-called radiative forcing on the climate.
...With this public mindset, phenomena such as that of child activist Greta Thunberg are no surprise. Most bothersome, however, is that this mindset has compromised the ability to convey the science to the public.
One example from the past month is my interview with Forbes.
A few hours after the article was posted online, it was removed by the editors “for failing to meet our editorial standards.” 
The fact that it’s become politically incorrect to have any scientific discussion has led the public to accept the pseudo-argumentation supporting the catastrophic scenarios.
Evidence for warming doesn’t tell us what caused the warming, and any time someone has to appeal to the so-called 97 percent consensus, he or she is doing so because his or her scientific arguments aren’t strong enough.
Science isn’t a democracy.
Whether the Western world will overcome this ongoing hysteria in the near future, it’s clear that on a time scale of a decade or two, it would be a thing of the past..."
Read all.