For a scientist studying climate change, “eureka” moments are unusually rare. Instead progress is generally made by a painstaking piecing together of evidence from every new temperature measurement, satellite sounding or climate-model experiment. Data get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over and over again. Do the observations fit the predicted changes? Could there be some alternative explanation? Good climate scientists, like all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest standards of proof apply to everything they discover.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-behind-climate-change/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years
can you see the evidence yet? you might need to open your mind first.
the top link I chose as the Scientific American is reported as the most likely source to contain anti-science info as much as pro-science. the physics remains the same regardless of source. have a look at the explanation of why climate change is happening moggs old chap.
sure, post your objections, but do try to keep your mind open mate. you deserve the right to accurate info so you can decide.
