You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the science of global warming.
One, carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas.
Two, carbon dioxide is created by burning carbon: wood, coal, oil and its by-products.
Three, if wood is used and replanted, we have a virtuous cycle. Wood is burned and trees take up the carbon dioxide, making more carbon
Four, if coal or oil are burned, they are taking carbon from under the ground, but there seems to be few ways to convert this carbon dioxide into underground carbon.
Five, geothermal on a large scale is not an answer. It may not be adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but it is taking heat from underground that is not put back underground.
Six, nuclear energy is not the answer. First, it generates a lot of heat that must be dissipated somewhere. Second, what do you do with the very hazardous waste?
That leaves only with wind, solar and tidal power. It is bad enough that there are naysayers about global warming, but each of these energy sources has problems with storage for when they are not available. No wind, no sun, or no nearby tides.
The way technology is changing, the storage problems may be solved in the next ten years or so. Battery technology is improving in power and cost. Will dynamos or capacitors be far behind?
Oh, by the way, who employs the three percent who claim not enough evidence has been gathered to confirm global warming. Could it be polluters? Even EXXON scientists are saying that global warming exists.
"Eppur si riscalda!” - “And yet it warms”, a variant of “Eppur si muove” - “And yet it moves”, incorrectly attributed to Galileo after he recanted his findings to the Pope.