The science surrounding the Mannian hockey stick, which lie at the claim you made surrounding recent warming being "faster than any natural cycle". Though even that claim is wrong unless you limit yourself to the past 1,000 years or so. Peer-reviewed climate proxies show dramatic swings in climate.
Data and methodologies are publicly accessible and subject to peer review.
Climategate showed scientists unwilling to release their data, even to the point of preferring to delete it. It showed scientists deleting email around the IPCC process. It showed scientists pressuring other scientists to boycott journals that published peer-review articles they didn't like. It also showed scientists publishing manipulative graphs to the wider public.
And just because something passed peer review doesn't make it true or even good science. Plenty of bad science has passed that bar.
You mean since you found an excuse to get your confirmation bias on - just like the anti-vaxxers.
You're wrong. My initial position was to trust the scientists, even though I knew modeling the Earth was a complicated and uncertain business. What Climategate showed was science corrupted by politics and confirmation bias.
You guys come up with a reason yet for why, in an industry where a single company can make $40 billion in a single quarter, they haven't been able to debunk climate science if it's all faked?
How can you "debunk" something that doesn't have simple answers? I didn't say "it's all faked". That you're even going that route shows you don't understand the complexity of the topic or the wide range of views between "Hoax!" (100% denier), "The sky is falling!" (alarmist), and anything in between. It also doesn't help that the topic is highly politicized and biased in one direction.
Outdating talking point #3,475: Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does
Wind isn't available everywhere. And solar has down days and is also not available everywhere in useful capacity. You still need the base load. Nothing beats coal for cheapness and availability. If it did it there wouldn't be any discussion, we'd just be using the alternatives.
Slight correction: the world has no appetite for the cost of nuclear.
Maybe, though if the concern is carbon dioxide it's a reasonable alternative to look at. The public, though, has no appetite for nuclear because of worries about catastrophic failures and nuclear waste.