So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.
Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.
Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.
We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.
We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED
NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!
We KNOW the planet has been much warmer in the past. We KNOW that as recently as 800 years ago the temps worldwide were at least 1.5 degrees warmer. We KNOW that man had no ability to affect climate change then.
Therefore, what is happening now logically happens independent of mans influence.
NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!
One tiny correction in your thesis here. I would reword it thusly:
We THEREFORE must allow for the possibility, even probability, that what is happening now is happening mostly independent of man's influence.
The truth is we don't have any CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that humankind is not affecting the climate any more than the 'warmers' have any CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that humankind is affecting the climate. And even if humankind was affecting the climate, there is no way we are going to reverse what is happening without eliminating two thirds or more of the world's population, and I don't think the most rabid warmer has any stomach for that.
The best we can do is point to the proponderance of credible evidence that supports natural cyclical phenomena more than it supports humankind's affect.
We should continue to monitor and study and learn as much as we can about climate, of course, as it is our best means to anticipate and prepare ourselves for what is coming.
We should NOT be establishing national or world policy based on dubious speculation however, most especially when it hands over authoritarian powers to take away our choices, options, opportunities, and liberites whenever or however they choose.