See this is what really irks me. You dismiss an entire field of research, the work of thousands of dedicated people*, millions of measurements, records that span most of Earth's history, some of the most advanced data science...all of which agree with the simple basic premise...based on what exactly?
Skepticism I'm all for - take Chosun's point that the role of landscape feedback mechanisms needs to be quantified better in climate models. I agree (as does the IPCC), although not to the extent of putting it forward as the main driver of change. However, this simplistic and highly vocal denial in the face of overwhelming evidence I just don't understand. You brand all the data faulty or fabricated, again, based on what evidence?
And on top of that, what gives you the right to brand every single one of us 'lying, manipulating, incompetent jokers'? Some arrogance! I'm sorry but that really p*sses me off - you think ad hominem attacks are unfair? Then stop using them and start talking evidence, measurements, observations, facts. Otherwise what's the point?