The scientific papers that support the theory of CAGW are well funded, so I'm not going to be drawn into the infantile "my link beats your link" game that you engage in with others on this forum, I'm far too smart for that childish rubbish, but hey go ahead and play in your sandpit if you like.
Its pretty clear that any scientific paper that exposes a flaw in the CAGW fantasy, funds become immediately available for researchers to publish papers that counter them, so you will always have an endless supply of counter arguments that prevents you from personally needing any semblance of critical thought and logic outside the bottomless lolly bag you carry around.
The papers you quote as proof "you are right and everyone else is wrong", are just opposing speculative viewpoints, nothing else, as there is no experimental proof that confirms whatever theory they pedal, they are just pure speculation. You can hardly classify climate science as science, its just one scientists speculation competing with another's and it can all come spectacularly unravelled if CO2 continues to rise and global temperature doesn't
