I think you ought to keep an open mind and realize that skepticism is healthy, not "brainwashing" as you call it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georg

I think you ought to keep an open mind and realize that skepticism is healthy, not "brainwashing" as you call it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/f... If you show evidence contrary to the "consensus", you get labeled as a practitioner of "voodoo science" by the IPCC, such as when Indian researchers reported that the IPCC study on Himalayan glaciers disappearing. Oops turns out the Indians were right after all. Examining claims made by climate scientists is no different than examining claims made by physicists or chemists. I have seen examples of the "models" being manipulated or wildly inaccurate in climate science. There's a large monetary incentive to produce climate science research, and a large amount of the process (IPCC) is controlled by politicians and their appointees. It's ripe for abuse and we need to stay vigilant, because every solution that's come out of these groups has been cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, both of which are total garbage solutions that just result in govt. taking more of our money. If we were really serious, we'd be funding the crap out of fusion power research. Fusion is the only way imo, the current renewable energy approach is too slow to advance, too inefficient, and too resource intensive. If we could get that working, we could power the planet on a bathtub of water and we wouldn't have to waste time and massive resources blanketing the planet in solar panels.