How can I figure out what is really going on about anything when there is an abundance of info on both "sides"?
Easily. If you can't figure is "climate change" man-made or not, dig deeper - ask yourself, does "climate change" exists at all, and if it exists, is it really as bad and awful, as both sides from your initial question try to convince you.
Hint: check "eocene climate", f.e. That climate alarmists are too dumb to get their hands on paleontology. So, paleontologists data is still untouched, and you could get some clue what real, natural Earth climate should look like. Then, think, why anybody will want our planet blocked half-dead on its way out of previous ice age, instead of becoming literally green from pole to pole.
Here is much larger game going than you could imagine.
PS: Isn't all that strange that core of idea of blocking Earth on its way out of ice age is exactly the same as core of dumbest ever idea of pushing puberty blockers on our children? Looks identical, isn't it? And pushed by exactly same persons.
You can't engineer something you don't understand fully. The best prediction meteorology could give with all their supercomputers and sophisticated models is fucking 3 (three) days. And that's not the "models" climate alarmists use for their chutzpa, but real ones.
You can't engineer an engine if you can't tell what will happen on the third turn of crankshaft. You can't engineer electronic device if you don't know how components works.
"Geoengineering" is bullshit. In the best case that crap could be named as "we poke a leviathan with a stick with absolutely no clue what could happen". Hopefully, stick is too small and leviathan did not notice anything yet.
All benefits from that shit goes not to the industry, because there are no any results, not even speaking about desired results, but to those who push that climate crap on industry effectively destroying it.
Easily. If you can't figure is "climate change" man-made or not, dig deeper - ask yourself, does "climate change" exists at all, and if it exists, is it really as bad and awful, as both sides from your initial question try to convince you.
Hint: check "eocene climate", f.e. That climate alarmists are too dumb to get their hands on paleontology. So, paleontologists data is still untouched, and you could get some clue what real, natural Earth climate should look like. Then, think, why anybody will want our planet blocked half-dead on its way out of previous ice age, instead of becoming literally green from pole to pole.
Here is much larger game going than you could imagine.
PS: Isn't all that strange that core of idea of blocking Earth on its way out of ice age is exactly the same as core of dumbest ever idea of pushing puberty blockers on our children? Looks identical, isn't it? And pushed by exactly same persons.
You can't engineer something you don't understand fully. The best prediction meteorology could give with all their supercomputers and sophisticated models is fucking 3 (three) days. And that's not the "models" climate alarmists use for their chutzpa, but real ones.
You can't engineer an engine if you can't tell what will happen on the third turn of crankshaft. You can't engineer electronic device if you don't know how components works.
"Geoengineering" is bullshit. In the best case that crap could be named as "we poke a leviathan with a stick with absolutely no clue what could happen". Hopefully, stick is too small and leviathan did not notice anything yet.
All benefits from that shit goes not to the industry, because there are no any results, not even speaking about desired results, but to those who push that climate crap on industry effectively destroying it.