Current IPCC climate science is based mainly on modelling and this modelling is done with two basic assumptions built into the model. The first being that the greenhouse effect theory is true and the second being that CO2 drives temperatures. If either of those two assumptions are incorrect the whole MMGW theory falls down.

It is easy to dismiss something based on the idea that because it hasn't been peer reviewed by mainstream journals it isn't worth reading but when you look into the peer review process or how corrupt the scientific establishment is you realise this is a mistake. You use the word 'probably' a couple of times as a reason to dismiss what is presented and this is what most people do. They have a religious like belief in 'science' and 'scientists' which is why we hear Greta constantly banging on about how we should trust the science and how it is settled when we cannot and it is not.

Here are a couple of videos explaining how bad things are

https://www.corbettreport.com/how-bad-global-warming-science-hurts-the-environmental-movement/

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/

Were you aware of how many experiments included in peer reviewed papers were unrepeatable? Once you start looking into this stuff it's pretty shocking.

Good luck with your PhD. At least computer science is logical (I assume). I like it when things are either true or false and there are no bones about it.

Thanks for taking the time to engage.