One thing you missed David, is the constant use of logical fallacy.
Now, as propaganda ploys go, logical fallacy is insidious, for it passes the “smell test”, in that it sounds reasonable. Especially, when backed by the standard set of propaganda ploys, notably, repetition, attacking the opposition, and the “bandwagon fallacy”.
However, not one study of ANY supposed secondary impact of climate change can possibly, logically, have any merit in proving that climate change is happening, let alone what its cause might be. For, you are not allowed to first assume your conclusion, that climate is warming, then attribute some secondary impact, such as glaciers retreating, or sea level rise, and measure that secondary impact to somehow, using reverse Polish logic, prove climate change. Throw out 97% of all of the peer-reviewed “science” that “proves” climate change is happening.
The only 97% number that applies to the climate change debate? Is that 97% of everything ever said about climate change is propaganda. Though they do love to hold up the 3% that at least looks like science as a threadbare armor for the rest.