This is hardly the place, in my opinion, to be debating well-established science with people who have their heads in the sand. Aside from my interest in strata matters, I have spent a third of a century doing actual scientific research in leading research organisations, where you don’t get published unless your methods and results stand up to scrutiny. The onus is on the climate science deniers to explain how it would be possible for increased concentrations of CO2 and methane, which have been known to be greenhouse gases for over a century, to not be causing the clearly observed warming.
That climate change is happening is demonstrated by so many diverse lines of evidence that all consistently point in the same direction that it is utterly undeniable by anyone fully conversant with facts. We would all prefer that it was not happening or that human activities were not the cause. Denial however is unhelpful. Physics doesn’t care what any of us would prefer to be true!
If anyone actually had any credible evidence that showed that the science had somehow got it all wrong, then they would be in line for the next Nobel Prize. As someone who has worked in science research (as a biochemist, not in the climate area) for most of his adult life, I can assure you that a grand conspiracy among the world’s scientists is utterly implausible. There is nothing a scientist loves more than proving that other scientists are wrong about something. If that scientist has good evidence it gets accepted, but it had better be good. Showing that climate science is fundamentally wrong would need evidence of the same magnitude as showing that biological evolution didn’t happen or that we have completely misunderstood how electricity works.
When people feed you climate science denial arguments, you can be assured that they have all been thought of and thoroughly considered, taken into account and debunked decades ago. Think about the big money interests that stand to gain from encouraging you to deny reality. It’s not science.