If they have... 1) You could have provided a link to two, yes? 2) The Media - and its scientist (?) pundits - would ease up on the "this is absolutely 100% hu

If they have... 1) You could have provided a link to two, yes? 2) The Media - and its scientist (?) pundits - would ease up on the "this is absolutely 100% human-made" narrative. 3) People who have suggested that maybe it's not "absolutely 100% human-made" would not be ridiculed, marginalized, canceled, etc. So if you can help out with any of these, it would be appreciated, sincerely. p.s. And per the article, the climate data that was being used prior, was incomplete, unreliable, and too small a sample size. And yet how many leaders and scientists have been basing big stroke ideas on that? We can't demand The Science, and then cherry pick bullshit because it perpetuates a narrative. Or can we??