Sounds like you have a decent grasp of the scientific method, I'd be grateful if you could explain a few things about this topic. Please help me understand the basic premise here. For us to understand scientifically what is happening we have to be able to observe and measure things. For climate change, please tell me what is being measured. Is it the warming of the earth?
That and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, principally.
In fact it was Svante Arrhenius (of chemical rate theory fame*) who was the first to write about the potential warming effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere, around 1900. So the basic idea has been around for ages. Oxygen, nitrogen and argon have no dipole in the molecule to couple to IR electromagnetic radiation, so they are transparent to IR. But CO2 and water do have dipoles and do absorb. Radiation in the visible range reaches the Earth's surface from the sun, where it is absorbed and warms the ground. Warm objects emit IR radiation. So that is what the surface of the Earth re-radiates upward. At night this radiation goes out through the atmosphere into space, balancing the energy of the incoming radiation from the sun. Gases that absorb in the IR intercept this radiation from the surface and re-emit it in random directions. So instead of going straight out, it bounces around in the atmosphere for a long time - more retained heat. With water vapour, there is an equilibrium between evaporation from the oceans and rainfall. If due to CO2 the atmosphere warms a bit, that equilibrium moves a bit, since warmer air can accommodate more water vapour before it starts to condense. (You can look up graphs of saturated vapour pressure vs. temperature). The effect is that the warming due to CO2 alone is amplified by water vapour.
The are other measurements that confirm this is going on. I read recently that there is a trend to
decreasing temperature in the upper atmosphere. This is consistent with the model. Since the exit of heat is delayed by the greenhouse gases, it reaches these high altitudes more slowly than before, so the lower atmosphere heats up while the upper atmosphere gets colder.
Obviously, collecting all these measurements over time is a complex business, as are the atmospheric models that have been constructed to predict the effects, but the evidence is pretty clear now.
It has certainly convinced almost all governments, the motor industry, the fossil fuel industry (in which I used to work) and the insurance industry. I read the Financial Times and every day now there is at least one article on some aspect of the changes we will need to make to the way we meet our energy needs. One day it may be the geopolitics of lithium mining and refining, another the changes to electricity grids to support more distributed power generation, or the pros and cons of carbon permit trading systems......it's a constant drumbeat now.
The days when climate change was just the concern of a few lefties in bobble hats are long gone. It's on us, and huge changes are afoot. It may be more apparent to me in London than to you in Panama, if that is where you are. Also from my background I'm perhaps more
au fait with the issues of the energy transition. But it's real, it's transnational and it's very big.
* Optional extra nerd-out
:-
Arrhenius equation: rate constant, k = A.exp(-Ea/RT), where Ea is the activation energy of the rate limiting step. (A is a proportionality constant, known simply as the "pre-exponential factor", which in practice relates to the probability of the molecules being correctly oriented to react in each encounter.)
