but you're talking about subjective or correlative "evidence". Plus, ice melting can't be shown to have anything to do with the last hundred years and it can't even really be shown to be doing anyting besides what is 'normal' for it... shrink and grow. And I didn't say greenhouse gasses don't do anything... I said that the predictions of man-made global warming are always wrong. Wtf does 'extreme weather' mean? As opposed to when? When the world was covered in ice or when the world was covered in tropical fauna? Come on dude...
Your body of global scientists is horse shit. Only the few hundred scientists who advocate manmade global warming are "real scientists" in your dogma's opinion. The thousands who call bullshit don't count.. and are not counted.
In fact... I studied math and physics in college. I know two things for sure... AGW doesn't account for noise because it's always your 'out'. Second, climate scientists don't understand their own models. They're not very good at math. The fact that they were excited to learn how to smooth a curve is evidence that they're n00bs at math.
Plus, they think if they've overly fit a curve to historic data that they've represented something meaningful of the future. If they understood the linear equations that they're working with and training in their neural networks, they'd know that the more precisely they fit the curve, the less meaningful it becomes.
In the end, climate change n00bs are just like Keynesians. They try to aggregate that which shouldn't be aggregated.