If you live in one area in a long time, it will be easier to observe if there is any climate change over a decade or two.
But the more you observe the current climate when you are outside, the less likely you are to agree with the warmunist claim that a global warming catastrophe is in progress.
I have been reading about climate science since 1997 -- mainly because of the unjustified attack on the use of fossil fuels -- cheap fossil fuels are the foundation for economic growth.
My most important lesson learned:
The more you study climate science, the less you know about the future climate.
If you are a true climate science expert, then you know nothing about the future global climate (other than it is always changing).
When it comes to predictions of the future global climate, no one knows what they are talking about.
Ignoring reasonable measurement margins of error for now (+/- 1 degree C.), Earth’s average temperature is slightly warmer (+ 1 degree C.) than it was in the late 1800s, and no one knows exactly why.
There is no proof to assert this warming was caused by man made carbon dioxide (CO2) -- especially the first half of the total warming, which happened before 1940 (even warmunists don't blame that on CO2).
Warmunists who advocate government policies to reduce CO2 emissions base their extremist demands on Global Climate Models -- computer game wild guesses, to use plain English.
The warmunists also invoke a "Precautionary Principle" -- they call for extreme reductions of fossil fuel use “just to be safe" ... in spite of total ignorance about the effect of increasing CO2.
We don’t know if doubling atmospheric CO2 will have any effect on climate.
If more CO2 does nothing but accelerate green plant growth, that's good news
If more CO2 accelerates green plant growth, and makes the climate warmer -- that's even better news!
Any warming effect from CO2 would be almost entirely at night, and would mainly affect cold weather nations -- not nations near the equator.
We don't know if reducing CO2 emissions will make the climate better, or worse, or just have a neutral effect.
Our ignorance of climate science makes the Precautionary Principle worthless.
It makes no sense to reduce CO2 emissions when there are known benefits from increasing CO2 emissions (accelerates green plant growth).
It makes no sense to reduce CO2 emissions when there is no evidence of bad news, such as runaway warming, from higher CO2 levels than today that existed during most of Earth's 4.5 billion year climate history.
General Circulation Models are inaccurate -- they have been making wrong climate predictions for 40 years so far.
The GCM models are inaccurate because the climate physics model they are based on is wrong.
That climate physics model is: CO2 is the 'climate controller'.
There is no evidence in 4.5 billion years of climate history that CO2 was ever the 'climate controller'.
There is no objective reason to assume any of the slight warming since the 1800s is due to man made CO2.
CO2 is a false boogeyman.
A false boogeyman is a 'marketing tool' used by political and religious leaders to scare people.
When people believe in the boogeyman, and are scared of it, it is easy to tell them how to live.
If a government convinces enough people that a catastrophe is on the way, and they know how to prevent it, those people will demand that their government do something.
Expanding the power of the UN was the original goal for leftists to use an existing false boogeyman (some scientists thought CO2 was evil) to morph themselves into a world environmental government.
The UN created the IPCC to convince people that the false CO2 boogeyman was real.
Expanding government power has always been the most important goal for all leftists, from those at the UN, to those in the Obama Administration.
Leftists never let a crisis go to waste -- every crisis is an opportunity to expand government power.
And if there is no real crisis, they create a false crisis.
The coming climate change catastrophe is a false crisis.
The climate in 2016 is better than it has been since the bad old days -- the unusually cold climate in the last half of the 1600s.