You're the one bringing politicians and minions into this, not me.
Climate science is just physics. Radiative forcing (aka the "greenhouse effect") has been known since the 1850s (Foote, Tyndall) and the first accurate prediction of it's effect on global temperature (Arrhenius) is from 1906.
If you really think geology is the only factor at play you just make yourself look ignorant. It doesn't offer any explanation for the significant changes we observe today
It's a dynamic planet. Things change.
Humans change things too. They build heat islands to warm your thermometers. They destroy the soil with industrial agriculture, etc. But the notion that CO2 is a pollutant is pure politics.
Sure, Foote and Tyndall were influenced by "woke" politics in the 1850s, don't be ridiculous
The heat island argument, which essentially denied that real warming even occurred, was debunked decades ago. It e.g. doesn doesn't offer any explanation for sea surface temperature increases (which have been absurdly high the last few years)
Radiative imbalance on the other hand is measured directly, explains the vast majority of warming and even predicts the stratospheric cooling we observe (something "sKepTiCs" can't and typically avoid discussing)
Geology provides a timestamped record of palaeoclimate, and it is only by looking at the whole of Earth history that you might understand what drives climate, and what the limits of variation are over what time scale. To try to do this by monitoring some thermometers for a couple of hundred years is just silly.
Strawman argument. Paleo climate is certainly included in climate science and pretending that it isn't is dishonest or ignorant. It's the reason why we can differentiate between natural drivers of change and human drivers in the first place
