Amazon

[busker]

Ah, yes.  "Climate Scientists."

Science is a faith-based endeavor (its credo is that the universe tomorrow will be like the universe today, an assertion which cannot be proved).  This leads to use of observation and experiment to predict the future.  Successful predictions, accurately and honestly reported, inform us about the validity of theories which generated those predictions.  Failed predictions are extremely valuable because they tell us to seek elsewhere for the truth.

Climate "Science" is also a faith-based endeavor, the credo of which is that humankind is evil and responsible for ruining the planet.  

I haven’t seen such a credo. Could you point me to a source? It just sounds like ranting
Geology doesn’t predict the future
Climate science is an interdisciplinary field that includes people as diverse as physicists and marine biologists. Climate scientists don’t all come out with a BSc in Climate Science, you know.

It counterfeits the outward procedures of real science, such as refereed publication, observation, prediction, and experiment in order to benefit from real science's record of increasing knowledge and discovering truth. 

Its publications are "refereed" by cronies who reject disconfirming observations and divergent theories; its observations are "adjusted" to confirm its assumptions; its predictions are invariably wrong about the future when compared with what actually happens; its "experiments" are models tuned to hindcast the past while producing those wrong but confirmatory predictions, using "adjusted" data.  (As Rocky advised Bullwinkle, "That trick never works.")

If there is such a vast conspiracy as you say, it should be easy for any qualified person in atmospheric physics or marine biology to discredit the field. Yet, the number of such people who try to do so, like the number of people who try to argue that Noah’s ark has dinosaurs in it, is vanishingly small.

Examples, please?

I believe in real science, hence am skeptical.  I don't believe the Climate "Science" credo or the counterfeit of real science its true-believers have  manufactured in attempts to confirm it.

I trust this is clear, if verbose.

You’ve been proved wrong repeatedly, including once in the past when you tried to argue that the blackout in SA was because of too much wind in the grid.
You also made the patently false assertion that rain forests don’t catch fire earlier in this thread 
I don’t think you're as clever as you think you are....

---

What we cannot actually argue about is that more CO2 in the atmosphere equals more trapped heat. That phenomenon is well known.
What we do not know for certain is the kinetics of the actual buildup of CO2 on account of human activity.

That said, rubbish claims like 'burning large tracts of the Amazon is carbon neutral' can be easily seen as such. A forest has a much larger inventory of carbon than a pasture.