Amazon

[busker]

I have recently done a detailed study of climate change.  Here are a few things I have learnt. 
Firstly there are very few real experts, to say you are qualified to speak on climate you have to have a degree in either meterology or climatology.  These people are rare.  The UN's committee on climate change does not contain a single scientist with either of these qualifications.  But there is a Emeritus Professor of Meterology from Harvard University, Professor Lindzen, he has various YouTubes on climate change, he seems to be one of the few people who knows what he is talking about. 

Here's the list of authors of one report from one working group of the IPCC:  https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/repo...hp?q=35&p=
There's a number of experts there who fit your description. Moreover, it's not true that you need to be degree qualified in those fields. Much of science is inter-disciplinary. Check out https://cgcs.mit.edu/people/faculty
The second guy on the list is a marine geochemist. Unless your assertion is that MIT, like the IPCC, doesn't know what it's doing.

I am a climate change skeptic but not a denier. The earth is warming and it is having dire results in various regions (especailly in my country Australia).  But there is a lot of fake news being promulgated by climate change alarmists who have a political agenda.   it is very difficult to form opinions when the subject is so complex and the data often inconclusive and contradictory.  

Yes, the media loves beating up non issues to get readers, they've always done that. And thanks to the parents of Greta Thunberg, Climate Change is now more of a circus than ever.
But there is plenty of credible data out there. You need to stop listening to Pauline Hanson. 

I would say over population is a far bigger problem although the two are inter-linked. 

There can be more than one problem facing humanity. I would say that the 12,000 nuclear warheads between Russia and the US is at the top of the list

Many areas will benefit from a warmer climate and many countries have the far more pressing problem of providing enough food.  

The point is that we don't know what will happen. For instance, with the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, the currently perennial rivers may become seasonal, so India will have to colonise Tasmania in order to grow rice in the hot, wet Derwent valley.

It takes detailed research to find the raw data.  Almost all news on the subject is skewed. To take one example, the sea level has risen by one centimenter in the last 100 years.  But sea level rise around the world varies enormously because of geographic configurations, ocean currents, sinking shorelines and the undersea landcape.  All these factors effect sea level rise in a particular region.

Yes, and no one's claiming that historical sea level rise is the only evidence of climate change.
'It takes research to find raw data' is true of any scientific field. You can raise similar 'doubts' about the Theory of Relativity. I believe even fewer people will have access to the raw data at CERN or from Arthur Eddington's 1919 experiment.