You’re postulating influences that have somehow escaped the notice of every climate scientist in the last fifty years or so, instead of anthropogenic global warming, which is accepted by virtually every reputable scientist on the planet who knows anything about it. Does that help?
I think the frog cartoon was intended to show by example that if a frog will sit in a gradually-warming pot until it is cooked, humans might suffer a similar fate if they don’t do something about global warming.
So if the premise is false, and frogs do no such thing, I’m afraid the example doesn’t work well as a metaphor, either.
