The political machine has been working on The Great Climate Freakout for a while now. But there's a lot of missing data. For example, there is no data whatsoever about how much heat is poured out by most of the oceans' volcanic ridges, and only 1-2 years of data for the Juan de Fuca ridge. We also have no idea how the Sun's output cycles over thousands of years.
When a person has no data, they have to make assumptions. Good science is not based on assumptions.
The climate brouhaha is a good example of confirmation bias/echo chamber effects:
"But the problem with this, otherwise natural course of action, is that it ends up creating an echo chamber of like minds, and their zombies. It ends up killing, at least within that network, dissenting views. Ultimately, what will be accepted as truth within that small network may not necessarily be the plain truth, but a relative truth. For those living within the confines of the echo chamber however, this relative truth, which to some may even be a plain lie, will be the unvarnished truth. That, is called confirmation bias. And that, is what led to that fan protest, which made some Arsenal fans the laughing stock of the world on a frosty spring day in 2016."
- Echo chambers and confirmation bias, https://medium.com/@chxta/echo-chambers-and-confirmation-bia...
It's like how Ancel Keys engineered The Great Saturated Fat Freakout in the 1950's. There was no basis to his claims that dietary saturated fat was a great villain that needed to be avoided at all costs, but the Machine picked up his theory and ran with it. Saturated fats have now been vindicated of the charges leveled against them, but most of the 'experts' are still confused.