The mainstream science posters here have likely posted orders of magnitude more evidence than have the deniers. And considering that most denier "evidence" comes from very questionable sources while most mainstream evidence comes from published science journals... well, you get the picture.
You need a dictionary very badly...what you guys tend to post is data...and then you make assumptions about what it means,..
Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Data - individual facts, statistics, or items of information
You have data and assumptions....not evidence which is precisely why when I ask for evidence to support claims, you can't produce it...the data is just information...it doesn't support your claims...
God are you stupid. The only one who thinks the data collected and presented by the tens of thousands of climate studies that support AGW are NOT evidence is you. I've brought up many studies here. You have not. Tell you what. Why don't you find us a study that supports the conclusions of the IPCC with empirical data and then explain to us in that specific case why those data are not actually evidence.
And, of course, we're still waiting for your observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that ceases to radiate - as you claim happens with all matter constantly.