And here's the gist of why the science of climate change is sound: all the pieces of independent evidence consistently point towards the same explanations of th

And here's the gist of why the science of climate change is sound: all the pieces of independent evidence consistently point towards the same explanations of the observed data, and the resulting model has predictive capacity. Though climate change is mostly empirical, we can retroactively analyze the precision of the models and their assumptions. And those assumptions, barring certain issues that are known and understood, are being constantly corrected. What exactly do climate contrarians have? They dispute individual pieces of data but have no cohesive hypothesis to explain the observations of changes in the natural environment. Typical example: someone will dispute the data regarding temperature change. So let's assume that it turns out there are inconsistencies in temperature readings. Then what's the natural phenomenon that explains the exponential increase in glacial melt across the world? Another one: they dispute the influence of CO2 emissions on climate. Fine, what's the oher potential explanation that derives in even better models for explaining the observed climate phenomena? It's the same story, over and over again, with every singular piece of evidence disputed by nutjobs: Antarctic melt and geological temperature fluxes, ocean acidification, precipitation changes and ENSO, sea level. It's a neverending parade of clowns who cannot piece together the entirety of evidence to make coherent, high-level explanations that derive in knowledge.