There has been surprisingly little science in the coming-ice-age/global-warming/climate-change/climate-weirding/whatever field. As it turned out, in order to continue getting funding for the climate science field, a scientist has to be willing to draw predetermined conclusions, whether or not they are supported by the data. Drawing different conclusions results in rejection by publishers and rejection by funding organizations. This is no way to perform actual science.

Science has failed to show any anthropogenic global warming, much less any significant contribution to warming. This is not quite the same as AGW being idiotic, but the application of the science has certainly been idiotic. Just because science has yet to show AGW being significant does not mean that it is not. As I mentioned, not much science has yet been applied to this field of study.

The main problem is that the data that we use to indicate climate is very noisy, and contributions by any source, including man, natural CO2 releases, solar output, etc. are lost in all that noise. Pulling signals of each contributing phenomenon is difficult, especially when there are so many competing phenomena in the noise.

The only real evidence of some sort of correlation is with sun spots and temperature as seen in the past grand minimum of sunspots a few centuries ago. However, as Robert has noted, we really don’t have much scientific evidence that there is a relationship rather than this being a coincidence.
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/sunspot-update-sept-2019the-blankest-sun-in-decades/

During past grand minimums there is evidence that the Earth also cooled, though the link between the two phenomenon remains circumstantial and unproven. If we see another grand minimum, and the Earth once again cools, then we might be able to finally tie these two phenomenon together.

We do know, however, that the models that are used to predict future climates have failed to predict the current climate. These models have assumed that AGW is real and significant, but the lack of skill in these models suggests otherwise (do not confuse a suggestion with a conclusion). The models also assume that temperature increases follow CO2 increases, but past scientific investigation has shown that it has long been the other way around, that historically CO2 increases have followed temperature increases. Other science has shown that CO2 bound up in soils is released into the atmosphere when temperatures increase. A valid conclusion is that these models fail to properly account for factors that make up climate, whether these factors are AGW, sunspots, cosmic rays, or whatever.

Science has shown the idea of AGW is idiotic.

The solar powered climate change model shows this. The Canadian farmer that is close to the Rockies has experienced it the last two years!

I can not express the frustration I feel when combating the AGW camp.