Frameshift, thanks for the reply.
Just to reply to some of your comments...(sorry, I have't figured out how to excerpt quotes correctly, so highlighted your comments in blue)
Do you think that climatologists just forgot to consider natural change as a component? Of course not.
The problem is the MM aspect never seems to be presented as just a component of climate change. It is presented by proponents as THE reason for current climate change. Definitively. No more discussion needed.
And your right, the MMGW theory has been around for a few decades. So you're correct to call out my comment about "immediately" tying this phenomenon to wealth distribution, carbon credits, geopolitical agreements is suspect. The rest of the comment still stands. Why does MMGW translate into these other aspects? In order to drive a political agenda. There are multiple agendas in play here - environmentalists, Politicians, Scientists, Academics, industry, all have their potential gains and agendas. The issue has become highly politicized. Why? Because there is so much to be gained.
You are just plain wrong about this. Do you think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are dumb or just pretending to accept the data? I'm not a climate scientist.... I'm a biochemist and I can tell you that most people in science can see the obvious case for MMGW. People who don't have a scientific background tend to be easily misled by corporate sponsored arguments that are fashioned purposefully to stop regulation of fossil fuel burning. Why do you think they would want to do that? Scientists don't have a vested interest one way or the other except that they have to live on the planet like the rest of us. The oil and coal industry do have a monetary interest and... I suppose... a very short time horizon.
I may be wrong. But I don't for a minute believe the scientists purporting this theory are just seeking the truth. There is too much at stake, like research grant money, the threat of being blacklisted and loss of livelihood. This is a big industry which is not immune to greed and pride and power.
I think the story would be much more compelling if there were stronger data and evidence that climate change is man made, and thus the scientific community had more consensus, and the solutions were technological developments to reduce CO2, not political solutions that transfer wealth, and if proponents were less focused on shutting down the opponents.
There is plenty of evidence temperatures on average are increasing. The question is, is man causing it? I am not convinced we are. Given the history of climate change on earth over eons, and the science that points to other probable causes, natural causes, and combined with the various agendas of the constituent parties, there is plenty to doubt.