There are three things that bother me about climate science. 1. Certainly in years past, anyone who even dared question that global warming wasn't real or wasn

There are three things that bother me about climate science. 1. Certainly in years past, anyone who even dared question that global warming wasn't real or wasn't man made was lambasted. That's not science. That's religion. Even just asking questions gets you labelled a denier. These, to me, have been and are reasonable questions to ask: - On what basis are we saying the earth is warming? Datasets for the last 1-2 centuries are still pretty narrow compared to how old the earth is and how hot and cold it has been at various points; - Is that warming, if proven, man-made? It's reasonable to investigate other possible factors that may well add to the effect caused by man; - Can we even do anything about it if it is? How expensive will it be? - What, if any, are the good effects of climate change? It can't be all bad but it just bothers me when I see things talking about how it will hurt, say, North America. But will it makes other parts of the world, currently largely uninhabitable, more hospitable? I'm actually genuinely curious about these and other questions and it bothers me that even asking them is a problem. 2. The lack of transparency. This goes beyond climate science actually but any published thesis or study on the subject should make data sets publicly available and--this one is really important--make any code for any computer models open source. Transparency and reproducibility are at the heart of scientific method are they not? There have been incidents (eg climategate) where no scientific misconduct was found but the text of certain emails really leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it reads very much like "here's the conclusion, now let's prove it". 3. The history of climate predictions has been pretty terrible and each time we're told "no trust us, this time it's totally different". It's not that I don't believe in man-made climate change. I actually think whether or not it's true it's probably largely irrelevant. There are simply too many of us and we're running out of too many things in the coming centuries that this will be corrected one way or another in such a way that climate change--true or not--will be the least of our problems. One of the interesting and depressing explanations for the Fermi Paradox is that the sphere of influence of life is ultimately capped by the speed of light, which is geometric, and life expands exponentially. Life always catches up eventually. You see this in nature where algae blooms for example will explode in rivers killing all other life until they themselves can't survive and they all die. In more balanced ecosystems there are other factors to keep any one species in check. It really seems like nothing is keeping up in check now so are we just another algae bloom?