Somedude: Obviously you can't ask someone to demonstrate that something isn't there. That's like me asking you to find a peer reviewed reference which says I am not king of Mars and all the Martians. It doesn't exist, but not because it is true. Obviously it is not true.
But can cite evidence for the obviously positive claim:
We presumably are influencing the climate, but there's no evidence (other than concocted nonsense posing as evidence) to show that we have changed things, so we really can't say by how much, or even if we're making things hotter or cooler than they naturally would have been, or whether we're making things better or worse than they naturally would have been.
In other words, you are asserting that the evidence accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists is concoted nonsense posing as evidence. Can you provide the evidence for this assertion?
If you want to play the 'let's refer to specific references' game, hey, you pick one and we can dissect it to you heart's content.
If I was being really specific, I would highlight that you are in fact making an assertion when you say "there is no evidence". It's akin to asserting that there is no God. It's not falsifiable so it has limited use as a statement of truth or fact. More pertinently, there is evidence, you just happen to disagree with the conclusions drawn from it.
I'm happy with my selection above with regard to my identification of an assertion i.e. can cite any viable reference, research, etc for your claim that the evidence is concocted.
There is so much myth and vague belief that 'the climate scientists unanimously agree that humans have radically altered the climate which would otherwise have remained at a natural and constant level without any fluctuation at all'. That's just not the case.
I agree, it is not unanimous and I am unsure why you would choose that word in this context. The Big Bang theory is not unanimously accepted by physicists either. There is however in both cases an overwhelming majority
in the respective fields of the relevant scientists who do agree which forms the
current scientific consensus.
The funding is all biased.
Please demonstrate or cite reference to something viable for this assertion.
There is no funding available for scientists who seek to find that everything is fine and nothing is going on. No one wants to put masses of money and time into making their own department redundant.
I
doubt that but I assume you meant colloquially. In some ways, it reminds me of Intelligent Design proponents complaining that funding is not available for ID when there is no viable research track that can be associated with the asserted destination. Why would anyone other than those with a vested or ideological interest throw money at an argument that has been had and agreed upon already by a scientific consensus without compelling reason?
I left a career in science, and no small part of that was being sick of the stupid bias and dishonesty.
What was your field of science?