Thanks for the links, am downloading a couple for future viewing.
My situation is I'm trying to find someone to tell me what the AGW advocates are talking about. Most seem to say that the earth is heating over a degree C over the past century, that this is unprecedented and dangerous, and that it's caused by a man-made greenhouse effect. Yet when I speak w/ an individual they back off from the claim and don't say what they are offering.
You follow me?
Sort of.
I remember being taught about human-caused global warming in my 10th grade biology class & at the time it didn't even occur to me to question or be skeptical of it; I simply took it as scientific fact.
My 10th grade PE teacher also made a statement that I remember from high school more clearly than anything else - well, except that when we started the chapter on sex ed, he said that he enjoyed teaching the topic. Both of these statements were made by him as we were settling down to start the class session for the day. The other thing he said was "trust no one." I found this to be quite a deep statement (and in hindsight it seems like advice I should've taken when being taught about human-caused global warming LOL).
Another rule of thumb life lesson I picked up a while ago was that if someone keeps changing their story, it's an indicator that they're adjusting the narrative & the reason for that is likely because they've covering up something or just being dishonest.
It seems to be what's happening with this sky is falling narrative, where first it was "global cooling", then "global warming", then they had to throw in the qualifier "human-caused" (or anthropogenic - AGW), then it got changed again to "climate change", "human-caused climate change", "climate disruption", etc.
Anyhow, back to my high school years, during my senior year, I worked as a warehouse tech for an HVAC contractor from Texas, that set up shop in my state & included a crew that was mainly from Texas. One of those individuals, who was sort of like a warehouse supervisor, liked to talk religion and listen to a religious radio station. He was what I think could be described as quite a devout evangelical Christian. As such, he was a young earth creationist and would try to persuade me that evolution (which BTW I also learned about in my 10th grade biology course) was a fabrication by the devil (something to that effect).
There were other science-related topics he liked to talk about, and I would basically be dismissive of what he was saying and considered most of it as religious fanaticism nonsense, including what he was saying about global warming. At first my thought was to look into what he was saying to rebut it, but when I did, I was surprised and found that there was actually substance to what he was saying.
On one hand, something like evolution is backed up by scientific evidence and study, and creationism does nothing to explain how we came about; on the other hand, climate change alarmism seems to be the product of crony capitalism.
That was back in the 90's, and I've been looking into this AGW issue. Over time I have found that the scientists seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm, contrary to what politicians, the media, celebrities, or climate change alarmism activists are saying. Much of this material asserting that humans-are causing catastrophic climate change problems that may be irreversible by burning hydrocarbons is from government-run entities, such as the UN and NASA, and the bulk of peer-reviewed articles you hear some bring up are funded by government grants. That might seem benign, but it isn't, because there's a conflict of interest when you have crony capitalist politicians in charge of making decisions about what to fund.
That's why I simply summarily reject this push by some that the peer-reviewed material is the ultimate go-to source for the issue. BTW, so far, not a single scientist who has written peer-reviewed articles endorsing AGW has been presented by those folks, which I suppose is an example of what you're saying.
Some of the scientists I've brought up do endorse AGW, but I think not many of them have authored such peer-reviewed articles. I don't necessarily fault them, because in some cases they're mathematicians, and they have to work on the raw data being passed on to them (assuming they actually have access to the raw data) and probably don't have much control over how reliable that data is.