You constantly just post long winded reports from a variety of sources, and at least lately you are citing said sources. However your lack of understand and most peoples understanding of science, especially peer review science is tremendous. There is a reason everything is considered hypothesis and theory and not fact. The problem with something like climate change is it has become politicized and for this reason and this reason alone do both sides of an argument make it to the public. In good science you have people challenging your ideas pushing you to look a different way or continue to look at the same thing. Its like being a starter and having someone behind you on the depth chart push you to be better. For every scientific narrative there usually are two sides, its when these sides become talking points and pushed by an agenda that the scientific process breaks apart and you have misinformation and bad science. Things like climate change and vaccines cause autism are this generations smoking doesn't cause cancer. You can always find support for a position you have already formulated, its why the goal is always to show a hypothesis is null not that it is right and you go from there. Every experiment conducted has a variety of outcomes, if I conduct a similar experiment in lab through out this week there may be a time that it gives completely different results, there may be a time it shows no results, then there is the average of all the times that falls in the middle, the middle is what is reported not the outlier or this one time event. Science does not deal in absolutes but that is how it is talked about when it becomes a politicized battle, that's what it becomes when people try to prove something they do not understand but are fed what to believe by said talking points. It occurs on both sides of a politicized battle, both climate change super supporters and climate change deniers.