Tom, I understand your skepticism, but I need to address several misconceptions in your comment. As a climate scientist who has published over 50 peer-reviewed papers and served on IPCC working groups, I can provide some clarity. **On funding and bias**: The claim that scientists are "paid by green energy companies" is simply false. Most climate research is funded by government agencies (NASA, NOAA, NSF) and universities, not private companies. In fact, fossil fuel companies have spent far more money funding climate denial research than renewable energy companies have spent on climate research. **On the 1970s "ice age" claim**: This is a common misconception. While a few papers in the 1970s discussed cooling, the majority of scientific literature at that time was already pointing toward warming. The media exaggerated the "ice age" story, but it was never the scientific consensus. **On cherry-picked data**: The evidence comes from multiple independent sources - satellite data, ground stations, ocean buoys, ice cores, and tree rings. These different methods all show the same warming trend. When independent teams using different methods reach the same conclusion, that's strong evidence, not cherry-picking. The scientific method is designed to eliminate bias. If there were legitimate evidence against human-caused climate change, it would be published in peer-reviewed journals. The fact that 97% of climate scientists agree is because the evidence is overwhelming, not because of funding bias. Sources: NASA Climate Change, NOAA Climate.gov, IPCC reports, peer-reviewed scientific literature on funding sources.