I just figured Kilimanjaro not having snow was hyperbole and if they couldn't predict a local weather pattern ten years in advance so what.

What changed me was actually reading the IPCC report and finding out that the so-called world's best climate scientists did ZERO work to factor in technological change or consider ANY engineering solutions. The report assumes technology in '50 will be exactly the same as it is in '20.

For example, 7 tons / $500 worth of iron sulphate was dissolved into the ocean, producing 800 km^2 of fertilized area, at least half of the algae sank and will likely be sequestered for "centuries and longer". Study didn't say in clear English how much carbon that means, but with algae being something like 1/10,000 iron that best case would be about $0.005/ton of CO2 -- so maybe $1 in reality?

Is iron fertilizing the miracle cure for climate change? I don't know, but the problem is that IPCC doesn't even consider it or any of the other millions of creative and effective potential solutions at all. They're obsessed over wind, solar, and electric cars and anything else is dismissed out of hand.

These climate 'scientists' also seem to have absolutely no creativity. For example, they say we can't scale carbon capture because it's impossible at scale to get that much air past the mechanism. Aside from nuclear power and a fan it could be combined with solar updraft towers and get the airflow for 'free'. Put some creative people on the problem and you'll find lots of solution to scaling capture.