I find it curious that when I was a child I was constantly nagged that my grandmother was going to kill us all with her hairspray, because that thing somehow made the Ozone layer thinner, making the Grenhouse Effect weaker and allowing Ultraviolent light to get more easily, which would cause all sort of cancer and burns and stuff.
Turns out that now we have
too much Greenhouse Effect, because a whole generation of women bullied about their haircare is now dead. And, somehow, we must be getting more ultraviolent light cuz my skins burns now more easily than it did twenty years ago.
Greenhouse effect is a different effect. Hairsprays and old fridges and so on used to use Chlorofluorocarbons as refrigerants and propellants, but those turned out to weaken the ozone layer (leading to increased UV intensity) and also have high greenhouse effect (i.e. reabsorption of solar radiation reflected by the surface and subsequent heating). CFCs and so on were banned because of that, so the ozone layer could slowly rebuilt (leading to lower UV intensity at least in the areas where it had a significant impact), and radiative forcing by CFCs was reduced. Other greenhouse gases are still emitted, so that effect is still ongoing (I'll get back to that in a bit).
I think intensity has mostly risen due to the air being much cleaner these days, as I said before, reduction of sulphur aerosols and fine dust particulates leads to decreased scattering (sun is more white than yellow), decreased absorption (burns quicker), and decrease cloud coverage (certain aerosols act as seeds for cloud formation).
The physics of the atmosphere and climate and so on are known, but also extremely complicated and highly interactive. It's hard to predict things properly. As such, I do believe that the IPCC is a bit of a scam, and much of current climate change politics is, well, politics. The IPCC models do not properly model one of the most important factors in surface temperatures, cloud coverage, as far as I understand it. That adds an error to the predictions that, if properly propagated throughout the years, makes the predictions utterly worthless. Generally, the lack of error bars on many of their fancy graphs makes things untrustworthy.
There's a monocausal focus on CO2 as the key driver of radiative forcing and thus climate change, and their work on their models reflects this. It is based around CO2, and any deviation from measured values leads to a change in the model's CO2 sensitivity. Basically, measure temperature actually higher than predicted? CO2 forcing must be even worse, let's adjust the factor! And the predictions get more apocalyptic with each iteration.
Furthermore, I think their data collection and selection methods are flawed and the whole "global mean temperature" they constantly blather about is a worthless number. They use a combination of space and ground based temperature measurements, but I don't see how they can accurately correct for the very intense change in environmental factors over the years. I.e., urban heat island effects, drying out swamps near measurement stations, reducing vegetation and generally reducing albedo. All of which are effects that will significantly increase the local temperature, and with the world's population rising and thus people building things constantly, it is no wonder that many measurement stations would measure increased temperatures.
As such I think climate science at the moment is highly flawed and heavily politicised.
It is a politically opportune science, too, because it creates a perpetual boogeyman that let's politicians demand that the people subject themselves to more control. Fossile fuels need to be reduced, so private people should abandon their ICE cars. Leaving them with electric cars (which are way more computerised than ever before and suffer from many infrastructure issues, so they'll be more controllable than petrol or diesel cars), or public transport. More control, less individual choice.
Climate change drives migration from the global south, and politicians love nothing more than uneducated masses they can control with gibs.
Fossile fuel reduction also drives power infrastructure change. Intermittent renewable energy sources drive energy prices up and require massive restructuring of the power grid. Increased control down to individual houses' grid connections is necessary to run this. More control over people.
It's an apocalyptic vision that brainrotted the younger generations and turned them into willing martyrs.
Green politics almost universally call for extreme measures to avoid climate change (which is based on rather nebulous numbers to begin with). There is never really a call for mitigation or preparation/acceptance. Anything that is not tearing down the status quo is rejected (for example nuclear power). It's not often spoken out loud, but all plans for "degrowth" also contain an end of capitalism and the establishment of a form of socialism that will totally work this time, trust us.
I couldn't say who is behind this conspiracy, but there seems to be a concerted effort to establish centralised power structures directly affecting the individual liberties of people and much more under the guise of climate change politics.
Tl;dr: I'm sceptical of the veracity of current climate science, and I believe that climate change is used politically as a vehicle to enact more direct control over the people.
