I think this question could get real ugly. You’re asking people to provide legitimate scientific information to argue against the scientific consensus. In other words, a bunch of programmers, English majors, sociologists, and psychologists are somehow going to be capable of filtering through the peer-reviewed literature in a way that will overturn all that climate scientists know about climate change. This is not an argument from authority. Rather, science works a particular way. I am not a climate scientist. My only chance of understanding what we know about climate change is to understand the scientific consensus.