For my neighbour, bragging about his 'environmental contribution' with his solar panels

Not to mention all manufacturing scrap and cells that do not pass inspection - an environmental refuse nightmare. And who will be liable for proper disposal at end of life? The homeowner? Utility?
What happens when the house catches on fire?

Union electrician here.
They take abt 10 yrs to pay themselves off depending on what part of the country you live in.
If you live in the north and are prone to hail, not a good idea.

Man made climate change is a myth. No need to do anything at all.

"Climate change is nothing but pseudo science". - Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the 1973 Nobel prize for physics.

I sure do, here's a link to over 100 independent, peer-reviewed studies that all dispute both the data and the findings made by the current alarmists:

https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/

The link also has the studies themselves in full, all citations and references, authors, contributors and the methodology of the experimentation.

"100 skeptic papers... have fun!"

Well... Have you read them all? Any of them? Can you give me a summary of what you found to be the most persuasive 3-5 papers in that pile, or at least pull them out of the stack for me, so we can discuss something tangible? Or are you just regurgitating?

Having read (or not read) these papers, what is your alternative operating theory for the changes in temperature that scientists are recording? Do you have one?

The three graphs that I posted above express what I personally find to be the most succinct and readily digestible expression of the consensus viewpoint on global warming.

Though I don't know how much you have personally engaged with the material you've cited, I now feel forced to return fire with a dump of information that expresses the consensus viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
--Includes citation to an paper that directly challenges methodologies employed in the 2-3% of skeptic papers: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-most-cited-climate-change-papers

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

There is no way we can productively continue this conversation unless we narrow our focus. So I ask again: What are the most persuasive 3-5 papers in that pile to you, and what is your operative theory?

First of all, calm down. You obviously have an emotional investment in this issue and it shows.

Secondly, I never said I wanted a conversation. Frankly I find the activist crowd on this issue to be very much married to their opinions and they tend to interpret contradiction as a personal insult. Such people are a waste of everyone's time; they will never acknowledge the validity of any dissenting view, however it may be presented.

Thirdly, I've read 16 of them and in general, as with most research, I would always judge the most recent research to be the most valid as it generally starts from where prior research left off. That being the case, I found the study conducted by Kauppinen and Malmi, [2019] to be the most easily digestible to a layman, mostly because it doesn't saturate the reader with equations on every page.

I can certainly also tell you what research I do NOT consider valid, and that is anything that comes from the IPCC. The IPCC is an arm of the UN, it is a political body and not a scientific one and the UN has been shown many times to be easily corrupted and controlled. You could also easily look up the brief that the IPCC gives to its contributing researchers and you'll see it is incredibly limited: i.e, they are told to only consider man-made contributions to climate change and to exclude natural external factors. This is prima facie anti-scientific. Real science considers every possibility.

And lastly, consensus is not, nor has it ever been, part of the scientific process.

Your top graph is fake- showing the 1930's to be cooler than the 40's and 50's. The 30's were the hottest decade on record, and the data has been changed to make them appear cooler so as not to screw up the hockey stick. When you have to alter your data to prove your hypothesis, you are lying. Plus, if you look at the left axis, we're talking about tenths of a degree- oooooh so scary