We have about a hundred or so years of high frequency data, and then we have high uncertainty, gap filled evidence of past temperatures in the form of core, tre

We have about a hundred or so years of high frequency data, and then we have high uncertainty, gap filled evidence of past temperatures in the form of core, tree, and fossil data and such. And basbased on this tiny trend over the past century, we are extrapolating a trend which normally occurs over tens of millions of years. More so, we are using this spotty data to predict the evolution of a massive, poorly understood, highly chaotic system. Modern climate science seems dogmatic because, in spite of the objectively poor data in comparison to the trend we are attempting to model, there is almost no healthy skeptical science. I challenge you to find more than a handful of papers exploring potential benefits of climate change, or challenging the consensus, as you would expect in any other healthy science. You likely won't, because the subject is a taboo. I searched as a college student some 5-7 years ago when I had access to journals and was astounded to find nothing. Healthy science requires skepticism.