I'm not saying that global warming is not manmade, and I have also seen quite a bit of the content of the arguments claiming it comes from emissions, but none o

I'm not saying that global warming is not manmade, and I have also seen quite a bit of the content of the arguments claiming it comes from emissions, but none of them are able to present anything concrete. As you pointed out, the optimistic models not winning, and in fact the outlook from mainstream scientists' models get worse every year. The problem is compounding -- that's how the world works in fact. I'm so concerned because nobody considers what I'm talking about seriously, and almost everyone easily discards what I say as the ravings of some pseudoscientific, ignorant apocalypse nut. But unfortunately for their social standing, and fortunately for people who are interested in facts, I know what I talk about. Let's think about this carefully. If the models predicting the changes through emissions are so accurate, why does the outlook get so drastically worse every year? It's because the system that you refer to as our climate in reality also includes gravitational and magnetic factors. This introduces huge oscillating systems. If physics today has no confirmed understanding about the role of the gravity on the climate, and how a gravitational field is maintained, how could they rule out factors that would influence gravity? In fact, there isn't a real understanding of gravity in mainstream physics in the first place. But they discard questions about its influence like they know. It's extremely concerning to me that so-called scientists are more concerned about being accepted by their peers than about getting the information we need to save our own lives. Go ahead and downvote, but karma on hacker news is the smallest price to pay if I can find even one person who wants to confirm what I'm talking about.