[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

And the polls? You of all people should know science is not a democracy. Did you use a poll to determine wether your work in chemistry was correct?

Experiments, peer reviews, discussion with other scientists and (something you seem to lack, at least judging from the words you write here) the understanding that I can and might be proven wrong, as well as the willingness to accept this.

If we want to know the probability climate change is man-made you do a data analysis.

You completely miss the point. There's clear evidence, based on series of experiments which have been repeated dozens of times that mankind has heavily contributed to climate change since the dawn of industrialization. It doesn't really matter if it is entirely man-made (which it very likely is not) or if mankind has only heavily sped the entire process up (which it very likely did). There's more than enough evidence to support it, and it doesn't matter what the exact probability is.

And lord knows the masses will hold onto their cherished beliefs to the point they can't be bothered to think about new data because they contradict something they once claimed as the truth.

Yep, just like religious fundamentalists (especially Christian), conspiracy theorists, flat earthers. Unfortunately you are doing just the same, just with a different belief.

I begin to wonder if I’m being fed a line of b.s. and so begin digging around.

Which on the very basic level is completely ok and necessary. But you already have marked it down as bs, and you simply cannot (or don't want to, can't say which just from reading your words) accept that your verdict "bs" might simply be wrong.
Just because someone I don't like says something I don't like, don't understand or simply cannot fathom to be true that doesn't mean it's bs.

And the ancient texts which I think clearly show that when man can’t explain why on a clear sunny day the sun was blotted out from the sky.

Which ancient texts are this supposed to be? (Please don't tell me it's "The Bible"...) The ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greek, the ancient Persians and the ancient Chinese all correctly attributed this to the moon moving in between the sun and the earth at least 2,500 years ago, and they all were capable of predicting eclipses reasonably accurate decades or even centuries before they would occur. Even other late bronze age civilizations (phoenicians, to name just one) likely knew this about 1,200 BC. The ancient Chinese might have known even as far back as 2,000 BC. Even in Central and Southern America classical drawings have been recovered that hint that the native people there knew about eclipses as far back as 2,000 years ago.

That’s my story and for now I’m sticking to it.

The greenhouse effect as a principle was first described 200 years ago. The first known and published experiments measuring the influence of infrared radiation on atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide and water vapor, were done in the late 1850 by John Tyndall. Global warming is often said to be a topic that came up in the 2000s, but was actually first predicted by Svanthe Arrhenius in 1896, including several models showing different amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere due to industrialization. Exxon correctly predicted the temperature rise due to massive carbon dioxide release back in the early 1970s.

All you have to offer is "I don't like what the mass media are telling".