@thatbrickster I've gone from going along with the mainstream opinion, to less alarmist, to lukewarmist, to skeptical of the whole affair in a very short period of time.

On a meta level, the way the "information" is presented is extremely dodgy. Claims of things being a proof that we're experiencing climate change are unfalsifiable: it's climate change when it's cold, it's climate change when it's warm. The funniest thing to me is when you get news that push the climate change narrative with stuff like "The warmest /season/ on record since 1970-something or 1930-something". It's very rarely "the warmest ever" or "the coldest ever". No one seems to realize that baked into these articles, is the assumption that the temperatures were higher/colder back in those days.

The celebrities and mainstream news being put forward tend to push the extreme predictions, but quietly behind the scenes the scientists are pushing super wide prediction ranges so as to not be proven wrong anymore. Crucial information is being kept from the public as to past change (medieval warm period/little ice age). Small scale, settled science experiments as to greenhouse gasses are being used as "proof" that once you add in a "mystery sauce" feedback loop factor, the tiny proportion of those gases in our atmosphere are having a disproportionate effect on it.

In the end, if all that was said is that we don't really know much, and that we should use the precautionary principle and avoid polluting too much, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the obvious bullshit that's being sold to me makes me react strongly in the opposite direction.