"Making thing 'political' is not always productive."

I'll start there. Inserting politics into science destroys science. The word science means knowledge, and that is ascertained by observation of evidence, not concealing it, lying about it, or censoring it. Whoever censors in a scientific debate has proved themselves wrong.

The climate change alarmism starts with policy the banksters want to impose, and has worked backwards to fabricate support for it with fraudulent research, blatant lies, censorship of scientific debate, and changing data to fit their narrative. The majority of actual climate scientists - not a few rogues - deny that CO2 has affected climate in the last few million years. CO2 is not pollution. It is the very basis for life on Earth. NO, S02, and some various other chemical species are very much pollutants and have wrought harm to ecosystems and human health (not climate) for decades, for example xenoestrogens have dropped testosterone in human males by >60% since I hit puberty, but you don't hear XR screeching about that. No one pays them to screech about that. That plummeting fertility is just what the NWO wants and that's who controls the purse strings.

And fertility is plummeting globally, an existential danger to humanity.

However, the fertilizer CO2 has risen a tiny bit in recent decades, ~200ppm. NASA says that plant productivity has increased by ~30% because of that increase. Does that sound like an extinction risk to you?

wuwt.com is a place where climate scientists actually discuss research, and I recommend you have a read at it. I don't want to further hijack @meno's blog, which is why I offered to discuss this elsewhere, and I will be very happy to because you seem eminently reasonable and I think exposure to actual research and the evidence will do to you what it did to me: change your mind to agree with the observations.