The bottom line on climate change 2

I reckon all anyone needs is part 1 but there are many details. The biggest clue climate change is not what it seems is the actual results. The taxation and research grants have put the world on a war economy, sucking up every spare resource for the countries and paring people's free cash to a minimum. In economics every spending choice has an alternative which has been rejected, the 'opportunity cost'. The greatest opportunity cost here is third world aid. The money already spent on this cause could have wiped out malaria, provided clean water for the third world and stopped genuine industrial pollution. These are people who need it now, not some vague time in the future even the worst projections admit will never be known as we'll all be dead by the time it happens.

There are the inevitable bandwagon jumpers, divided between the leaders (ie those who know) and the followers (ie those who trust). The leaders are simple frauds on the biggest scale ever seen and can basically go fuck themselves. The followers are what saddens me the most as being dishonest makes sense to those with no morals, but being dead stupid is something people are stuck with. My estimation of the world average IQ has been decimated since this began, as besides the converted most people I present this long researched case to simply ignore it all. They can't support their case (besides one scientist who I can't actually understand as I'm not one myself so have sought the support of one for myself), but refuse to accept the figures all around them. The rabid left wingers just see it as another symptom of capitalism so happy to add 'climate' change' to whatever other perceived evils they see in the very system which allows them to protest about it. Let them all fuck off to China and Cuba and protest against theirs instead. Oh, they can't.

In a criminal case the defendant (here being mankind itself) needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both sides seem convincing once a case gets to trial (the others fall beforehand), and the jury then needs to decide if there's enough evidence for guilt (not in France but they still tend to get it right using their system) to convict them. In science this should not be the case. They try themselves to disprove a theory until it's almost impossible to, and then they publish their figures to be reviewed by peers.
The fact here that because this idea arrived along with the internet the other scientists are able to publish their own findings as well, unlike before when only the strong were reported. Now for reasons best left to the imaginations of the readers, there are totally different measurements found by satellites, ice cores and all the other methods submitted to the IPCC. The IPCC are not peers either, but a jury of politicians. They include scientists but their role is meant to be to decide if there is enough evidence to make policies.

As anyone can find two equally convincing (to be fair the figures against global warming are more so as they are all based in the present and past so certain) sets of figures then there is reasonable doubt. Unless that doubt is proved to be false there is no case. What more can I add?