I am not a climate scientist, but I can sense a bias when listening to opposite arguments.

Water vapors are the major greenhouse cause. Everyone knows that without clouds, there is colder at night. Water vapors are about 0.4% of the atmosphere when CO2 is ten times less. Why do we not focus on water vapors first? In the last century, the density of CO2 increased by about one-third. Is that change significant enough to explain the warming? And how much of that increase we caused by burning fossil fuels?

By looking at permafrost and glaciers thawing from the bottom, not from the top, we must consider an option that climate warming comes from inside the Earth. It sounds reasonable when science is telling us that European and African continents are drifting apart from Americans. It opens cracks in the ocean floor, warming the oceans. Warmer water dissolves less CO2 than cold one. We can have a valid hypothesis that warming from inside the Earth increases CO2 levels.

We have a huge political uproar about lowering CO2 levels because under that pretense, the richest among us, those who own our industry, can get from the government trillions of dollars to modernize their businesses. Of course, the government is deeply in debt and does not have these trillions of dollars. But the richest among us, the same ones who seek government money to fight climate change, would gladly lend that money to the government. Then, after paying its bureaucrats, the government will give the same money back to the same people from whom it borrowed it. It is the swindle of the century, https://medium.com/discourse/the-swindle-of-the-century-e6bf2ef81f4f.