You need to understand that the climate has always been changing. The dispute here is the extent to which human activities contribute to that change.

The global warming/ climate change/ climate emergency crowd have a basic flaw in that they use modelling based on their preconceived idea of how the climate works (an assumption that CO2 is effectively the control knob). These models then produce "forecasts" of the future that basically boil down to: change in temp = change in CO2 x ECS. Where ECS is the "estimated climate sensitivity" to a doubling of CO2. If you point out flaws in their work they will call you names, like "denier". This indicates quite strongly that theirs is a "belief", a "faith" even.

There are some astoundingly huge things that they miss though. Their models (hugely simplified here) are little more than linear (or exponential sometimes) projections which also assume that the feedbacks are linear.

The climate is a CYCLICAL chaotic system, actual feedbacks are very much non-linear and in some cases may change not only manuring but direction. Water (in the atmosphere) for example is a positive feedback at lower temperatures as water in the atmosphere absorbs light and emits infrared light (just as CO2 does). However, once the sea surface temperature gets close to 30deg Celsius that feedback turns strongly negative due to the formation of tropical thunderstorm clusters. These thunderstorms act like giant automatic refrigeration units. Warm humid air rises from the sea displacing the cold dry air above it and forcing it down. Once the water vapour reaches the upper troposphere it condenses (releasing lots of heat through latent heat out condensation) forming tall thimble clouds which, by the time they form in the late afternoon, shade vast areas as the sun is more at a lower angle.

How do climate modellers model phenomena like this? They don't. They "parameterise" their models.

Water is an amazing substance.

There is lots more too. Generally, climate models assume that the Sun is static. I.e. there is no change in its output that effects the climate. However, the Sun does change both in terms of radiative output (very small changes) but more importantly in solar wind and magnetic field. The magnetic field can have significant impact on terrestrial weather patterns through influencing the jet streams.

Climate is very complicated.

As far as glaciers melting. That is what happens in an inter-glacial period. That particular one would be one of the last tropical glaciers remaining. It appears to have banished due to lack of snowfall (a glacier is just a frozen river, without snowfall they will vanish, typically due to ablation more than melting). As for Glacier National Park. They used to have signage saying that the glaciers would be gone by 2020.... they quietly removed them in 2019 as the glaciers there are actually growing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs-2/

When you live through the years they claimed would be the end, again and again and again, you become wise to the fear mongering.

When they tell you that by 2009 ny will be underwater, and that there will be no more snow, and that " Britain will be plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020."

The fear mongering comes again and again, and they always have teenagers push the message because they haven't been around long enough to see the lies unfold.

Look at where the people at the top of this who are pushing it live.

They arent selling their coastal properties or islands.

Just like they arent wearing masks or getting jabs.

If global warming ks real how come the glaciers are still there? Al Gore made a video 20 years ago saying the science was clear and all the glaciers were going to be melted by now. He made a whole movie about it. That movie also said we were going to see an increase in severe hurricaines which hasn't happened either. How can you trust people who are so consistently wrong. Not to mention these same people have multiple homes and private jets while they fly around the world saying the peasants shouldn't be heating their homes so much in the winter...

This could be possible.

Look up Tony Heller on yt or rumble. Data is absolutely faked and/or deleted. 1930s were way hotter.

Some ice melts, other glaciers grow. Did you hear about the many areas in the US experiencing record LOW temps this summer, or did you just hear about how hot it was in Seattle? Your brain is constantly being gerrymandered, and you are too conditioned to notice.

I think it pointless to try to convince you one way or the other because I don't effing know. I do suggest nobody else really knows either. Since the 70's people have tried to fearmonger the climate. They called it global cooling. Then they stared moving the goal posts; acid rain, the hole in the ozone, global warming, now they just say climate change. So if the science of the day says it's too hot or it's too cold it's the end of the world because the climate changed.
You mentioned glaciers melting; did you see this one where they are increasing? Why wouldn't this encouraging article be headline news? Maybe our efforts this far have helped? Naw...it's not profitable to have good results.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Volcanic eruptions, solar flares, and wild fires can all affect global temperatures. Do we have accurate models predicting those?

Why is it that regardless of the science the solution is always the same...gotta pay a tax? It was capitalism that brought about paper straws. Cool. If taxes were lowered more venture capitalists could fund more products to clean the environment. See THAT I like. I want a clean environment. I don't want smog so thick you have to turn on car headlights during the day. I don't want rivers or lakes catching fire because of trash and chemicals. I want clean water for drinking and fishing. Conservatives have a history of conservation regarding the environment. Hunting and fishing licenses help to fund protections and steel vs. lead shot help as well.

Those efforts are pretty minor but at least there is a possibility of accurately tieing them to duck dear and fish populations by state.

Not being able to accurately measure the effects of bad behavior on the climate, or racism for that matter, is by design. If you deprived someone of the use of $1,000 that's the starting point for restitution. If we can never accurately estimate the damage to the environment there could never be a point where reasonable people say, "enough is enough".

There is always someone saying we need more of your money to fix the bad thing and to fund another layer of bureaucracy to administer and enslave you.

When's the last time a public servant said, we have taken enough of your money, we did the hard thing, we made the wrong right, thank you?

The question is whether or not it's inspired by human endeavors. It is, actually. Too bad more CO2 means more fauna. So all of these people are just retarded...

Global cooling is what we really want, though. Things would get very interesting and very quickly.

Ice may be less in some areas, but it is more in other places so there is actually more total ice worldwide. The 2009 E-mail scandal blew open the fraud. They were manipulating the data in fraud. First off, the pro GW scientists were being paid off by big oil. Royal Dutch Shell and wealthy people who they say, "don't write his name but you know who". They were using "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" Science isn't supposed to hide things. They were hiding the raw data that showed a 90 year DECLINE in temperature and turned it into an INCLINE. Straight up fraud. Mike is Michael Mann, the professor and NASA guy who created the fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph that was totally debunked. His "nature trick" to hide the decline was to claim that the new digital thermometers were soooo much more accurate than the old analog ones that they had to go back and alter all the data. They never said how much but it should be one coefficient, say 1.5 degrees warmer. That means the whole raw data chart would bump up 1.5 degrees but wouldn't change it from decline to incline. That means they had big + adjustments on one side with big - adjustments on the other side so the chart could flip like a see saw. Here is a breakdown of them. It's 180 page summary and the different scientists are in different colors. https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf https://www.climatedepot.com/ I used to have links to some really good sites on my old computer but I can't remember the names.