I will not speak about this "climate change", nor should anyone who values their life and freedom, lest we end up like Navalni and his Russian-opposition colleagues, or taken away in the middle of the night by men in white cloaks pumping our bodies with tranquillisers.
(this by the way can happen whether one speaks for or against that idea, because one never knows who will come to power next)

Yet there is one thing we can all agree on, whatever our views on that specific controversy: HUMANS ARE TROUBLE-MAKERS!

Whether it is this or that trouble that humans cause, the notion that we can fix it while still maintaining such high population numbers, is arrogant and ridiculous, often just an excuse to continue letting our genitals loose and the blind genes happy. The blanket is just too short, no matter which way you pull it.

Therefore:

As Mhaze said:

«Actually they're worried about what'll happen late this century ie what'll happen to the grandkids of our grandkids!!»

So no worries - just don't have kids and if you already have, try to discourage them from having grandkids - then all environmental problems are solved, and most inter-human ones too!

Climate action is a religion, net zero is not science. But few countries are more determined than Labor-Greens Australia, to sacrifice themselves at the UN altar, as US/China/India laugh their heads off at us.

Canberra Greens, federal election flyer, from Woke Isabel and Woke Christina, what's their top priority? Fix footpaths? More cops? Nah, it's <Net Zero Emissions By 2035, Following The Climate Science>

John says that the warming cycles were local and not global.
I remember that there was an argument about that and was resolved when
some evidence was found in Indonesia, if memory serves me.
Anyway in a cycle many hundreds of years long it would seem very likely
that the heat would spread around and around.
If the heat was generated by whatever external mechanism it would be
world wide.
If the co2 theory is correct then it will be hot for 100s of years and
then get cold around 2600.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/01/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency-2/
The Maunder minimum was the very low count of sunspots in the 18th century.
As I have interpreted the theory there are multiple cycles all going
on at the same time.
There is a cycle of variation in the suns radiation.
There is the 11 year cycle of the sunspots.
There are the change of the orbits of the earth, both distance from
sun and the rotation of the earths ellipse around the sun.
The change in sunspot intensity from maximum to minimum is modified by
the suns variation in radiation. In other words the sunspot cycle
is modulated by the sun cycle, and then modulated by the orbit changes.
The sunspot activity generates a magnetic field around the earth and
modifies the existing field.
The upshot is the magnetic field around the earth varies with sunspot
variation all modulated by all those cycles.
to be continued

continues;
Then the cosmic rays are diverted away when the magnetic field is
strong but when it is weak they react with water vapour and form more
clouds than when the field is weak.
The clouds reflect back into space heat from the sun and shade the earth.
This variation in reflection and shading causes cycles of warming and
cooling of the earth over a period about 600 to 900 years.
Hence the 18th century was cold and the 10th and 11th centuries were warm.
This my understanding of what those teams have hypothesised.
I suspect this period from the Maunder Minimum to now has been seen
as Global Warming caused by co2. The Hypothesis suggests that co2
has only a very small affect on earth temperature. 0.01 deg C I think.
This theory explains the Roman warming, the Medieval warming and the Maunder Minimum.

Then the cosmic rays are diverted away when the magnetic field is
strong but when it is weak they react with water vapour and form more
clouds than when the field is strong.

The authors say that the IPCC models do not take into account the
effect of clouds. Because of that they let their effect on earth's
temperature be allocated to CO2.
I suspect that was not done deliberately but simply because it was there.

It is early days yet as it was only published 2 1/2 months ago.
It is extraordinary that a site like Conversation will block anyone
whose scientific opinion they do not like.
So people who use that site will not hear about this particular
theory. I guess that is the idea.

Whoops, this part had a mistake it should read;
form more
clouds than when the field is strong.