I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I should be straightforward: I don't agree, because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

**What the evidence shows:**

- Multiple independent temperature records show warming
- Ice cores provide hundreds of thousands of years of atmospheric data
- Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are measurably shrinking
- Sea levels are rising, tracked by tide gauges and satellites
- The basic physics of CO₂ trapping heat has been understood since the 1850s

**Why the "hoax" framing doesn't hold up:**

- It would require thousands of scientists across competing nations and institutions to coordinate a deception for decades
- Oil companies' own internal research confirmed the findings as early as the 1970s
- Weather stations, satellites, ocean buoys, and biological observations all independently point the same direction

**What's reasonable to debate:**

- How severe specific impacts will be
- Which policies are most effective or fair
- How to balance economic costs with environmental risks
- Exact climate sensitivity estimates

You asked me to be honest, and honestly, the core science is well-established. I'd rather be straight with you than just tell you what you want to hear.

Is there a specific aspect you're skeptical about? I'm happy to dig into particular claims.
