True.

And one thing necessary is to bring out what other branches of science, not just the climatologists, have been finding. Like geology, the Quaternary branch of it, that studies things like old soil deposits. Because in those you can find old pollen, and there is pollen from plants that now can only grow much pretty far south found in deposits way further north.

So, from that, we know, for a fact, that temperatures have been a lot higher than they are now in several periods of the past, and fairly recent past too, in written history. You can't just start from something like "pre-industrial" and then assume that that would be the gold standard of climate and everything higher than that is bad... especially when that "pre-industrial" period happens to be the tail end of the Little Ice Age, which is even in our damn history talked about as a time when it was colder than it had been before, because the people who lived through it recorded it as such.

But these days different branches of science don't seem to talk much, if at all, to each other.

And then the effing so called "journalists" and "news" never seem to question the climatologists as to how they would explain things like that. Why did the Vikings leave Greenland? Why is that pollen from warmer weather plants found much further north than they can now grow? Why did the climate warm back then, and why is similar projected warming now considered to be bad when it has happened before? Why does rising CO2 seem to follow warming, not precede it in previous warming periods, even if they are admittedly fairly closely connected?