> the thing that bothers me (maybe not rightfully) is that the visualizations depend on the scale used. The didnt even note why they picked the scale for the colors or the graphs.

> In other fields (business) that would be a HUGE red flag.

I don't know why you think this would be a huge red flag in other fields. You're given multiple visualizations. One is a graph of recent direct carbon dioxide measurements. The second is a graph covering 400,000 years of indirect measurements. The last is a time series of recent data showing carbon dioxide concentration in a map view.

The only thing iffy about these is that the graphs don't start the Y axis at 0. This is either a dirty trick to inflate the visible change or a helpful visualization choice to highlight the meaningful difference, depending mostly on how you feel about the data. But regardless it doesn't change the numbers.

> The other issue is that they appear to be changing measurement methods of carbon. First using ice cores and later using real air or at least much younger ice cores.

They give you different data sources in different visualizations. You make it sound as if they are mixing them where convenient. Especially with your "at least much younger ice cores" statement, I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief about your claimed intent here. Near as I can tell there is no substance or meaning to this claim, and you're simply creating FUD.

> They dont say how or their methodology or assumptions they had to make. (Im sure there are good ones, but why not definitely state them so the reader can decide) etc.

So do some research. You say you've "yet to read a research report that is convincing that climate change is abnormal due to humans." But have you actually looked? You can go to NOAA and learn about their core and atmosphere sampling methodology. You can look up NASA's AIRS system for details on how it works. It's not possible to spoon feed the level of detail that you claim to want. The spoon feeding is the high level data that NASA gives you. If you want more than that, dig in and find it.

> I just dont know why there isnt a single source that aggregates the approaches, explains the assumptions and lets the reader decide. Instead, every bit of work on this topic is sensationalized and it makes me not want to believe it. I want to see a well reason argument that lays out the assumptions and I don't think that is too much to want before being convinced

You complain that NASA is mixing measurements above (which doesn't appear to be a valid claim, by the way), and now you want someone to create a high-level summary that actually does aggregate the measurements? You're not consistent in what you're asking for.

You are also essentially asking why no one has managed to summarize literally centuries of human work into a blog post that explains this in an irrefutable way. You're asking for something unreasonable. You are asserting that everything is "sensationalized", but NASA's page is literally 3 visualizations and a short bit of text. Everything is only "sensationalized" if you're choosing to see it that way.

There are lots and lots of resources online that provide details. Start at Wikipedia and go from there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming