Nobody serious in the scientific community is making the counter argument anymore. The evidence is well presented, if you're not convinced feel free to peruse it. It's not my job to persuade you.
Sorry, but that is opinion & not a proof. It sounds more like a committee rubber stamped a policy & declared it as "settled". Similar to Galelio's time with a Geocentric universe model being the "settled science".
I don't need to persuade you either. You can have the wrong idea & it does not affect me unless you manage to convince enough people to take away my rights to free speech & property. The "high road" "let's not dignify their arguments" does not work if your models fail to predict anything & if the "Emperor has no clothes"; which is one of the reasons why we are seeing increased censorship.
Re: proof, think of it this way. If this has been so obviously proven, why are you unable to produce any evidence of the proof? Why are the standard climate models wildly divergent, under constant modification, & still unable to predict phenomena? One would expect consistency & predictability, like Newtonian Mechanics or Maxwell's Equations. Until then, it is at best, a tenuous, model that over time is becoming increasingly unbelievable as alternative models better fit the data & have physical experiments backing them. Also, "the map is not the territory".
