As I said, data support an explanatory framework. The influence of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on planetary temperatures is an explanatory framework. To demonstrate, I provided a reference of paleoclimatic data analyses over 420 million years indicating that doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration induces, at a minimum, a 1.5 degree C global temperature increase. (Maximum 6.2 deg C, median 2.8 deg C). That is one example of how data and data analyses support an explanatory framework.
A wide variety of data types and analyses support the explanatory framework that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations induce warmer global temperatures*. The alternative -- that they don't -- is not as strongly supported, by a long shot.
* The basis for this framework is the direct physical observation that the CO2 molecule absorbs longwave (infrared) radiation.
What you or anybody "think" (i.e. opinion) doesn't matter in science. What matters in science is the explanatory framework that is best supported by the data.
I have yet to meet a meteorologist who accepts the current global warming scenario.
When the data can be shown to be reliable, that might give it more credibility, but the evidence is so flimsy that the time frame so inadequate, that building a whole theory on it is ludicrous.
If you want to buy into the whole global warming thing, go ahead and buy your carbon offsets. Just don’t preach it as fact cause it ain’t.