jpsdad, I am pretty sure you and I agree on a lot of things! One of which is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.

However, not causing great hardship to the world's poorest of the poor is probably also another thing we agree upon. Right now, approximately 25,000 people starve to death every day. That dwarves the "climate change" deaths from all other putative causes combined.

I believe it is easy to demonstrate that the current temperature of the earth is colder than the optimum for hominids. (Look at the geographic distribution of hominids, ex humans.) I also believe that the atmospheric levels of CO2 are suboptimal for the production of cereal grain crops across the globe that feed humanity.

I truly do not understand this statement you made,

"With regard to global warming, sites like the one you referenced, are there for sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming."

There is no science of "global warming", there is just science.

In a previous post you said,

"Very few in the scientific community, (if any), think higher ocean levels were present within that time period."

This was in response to two different discussions about historical sea level changes over two different time periods. My comment refers to the testable hypothesis that global sea levels have been previously higher, specifically during the period approximately 9,000 to 5,000 thousand years ago, referred to as the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

I think, for example, oysters cemented in situ above the current sea level in Thailand in an area that is currently exhibiting subsidence with no indication that the region has been subjected to a tectonic reversal is evidence that sea levels were higher in the recent past.

"Global warming" scientists call this disinformation? Rebut the evidence, that is the only valid method of science. Are the oysters not there? Were they planted by activists? Is the dating method in error? Is this area experiencing tectonic uplift? If so, then there should be a large gap in the preserved deposits where the ocean was too deep for the development of oyster shoals.

That is just a single, simple example that can be understood by people on the forum without a deep technical background.

The compiled studies are literally from all over the world. Which is exactly what you would expect to see as a response to global eustatic sea level fluctuations in the geologic record.

There is no such thing as "consensus" science. There is no such thing as scientific "disinformation". There certainly are existing examples of scientific fraud. I even agree that "cui bono" is the basis for a LOT of fraudulent or shoddy science that has been performed by commercial entities. However, there are a lot of massive financial interests that exist on the side of promoting alarmist climate change predictions and actively stifle healthy debate and scientific inquiry on the issue.

Best wishes to the Earth and to humanity,
FishinRod