Your statement that "the entire body of scientific evidence to back up my opinion" is not correct and demonstrates that you have been fooled by the politics.

You can find out about the first law by Googling it. I learned about it in engineering school.

@Natey

The scientific method is just fine. It's the politics that have a lot of people, like yourself, fooled.

Application of the first law of thermodynamics, the time-integral of sunspot numbers (a proxy for energy retained by the planet) and a generalization of ocean thermal cycles explains average global temperature anomalies since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%. Accounting also for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the accuracy by about 0.5%.

Deficiencies in the Global Climate Models have been demonstrated in their total failure to predict the flat average global temperature trend since about 2001. I graph the average global temperature anomaly data by month as reported by all five agencies and the CO2 level from Mauna Loa. The data are provided by various government agencies and include both surface and satellite measurements.

Use of these sources avoids the delay, bias and de facto censoring of ‘peer review’. I compare the temperatures for validity and average them to avoid bias. The temperature trend has been approximately flat for over a decade while the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by over 25% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001. I wonder how wide this separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature will need to get for some people to realize that maybe they missed something.

Application of the first law of thermodynamics, the time-integral of sunspot numbers (a proxy for energy retained by the planet) and a generalization of ocean thermal cycles explains average global temperature anomalies since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%. Accounting also for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the accuracy by about 0.5%.