Evidence that shows anthropogenic global warming/climate change is false?

Personally I've all but given up on looking here for any constructive debate about AGW, ACC or whatever they are calling it now. When I brought up problems that I've had with AGW, (as it was called back then) I was labeled a denier, Never mind that when I worked out the math the IPCC uses, it didn't even come close to what was happening, I was told I couldn't understand the models so there was no reason to release the code, Never mind I'm a computer programer, and have been in the computer business for 30 years. Trust me a computer will believe anything you tell it.

I was told I didn't need to see the raw data that Hadley Climatic Research Unit used nor did I need to see how it was combined, I was told that there was no reason to double check, even though CRU admits to deleting that data, and apparently doesn't have the code used to combine the data sets. I was told the data was out there I only had to look, but they didn't tell me which data sets CRU nor how it was combined. I was told that it didn't matter that many weather station don't meet the minimum standards, we've adjusted for that, yet the very government agency in charge of the stations admits they really don't know which station meet the standards and which don't.

At the time the spokes person said it would be a good idea to check the stations out. Yet when, admittedly amateurs, went the check out the station, they were lambasted for even daring to look at the stations, much less taking measurements. I was told the imaginary, nonexistent weather stations, were used to fill in data where no stations exists, yea we won't show you the math to show how we got that number.

And I also noticed what happened it you dare question AGW, the threats. Those pushing AGW threatened not only to destroy people lives, but kill them, put them in jail, put them in camps to re-educate them. Not once did I hear, the data doesn't look the way we predicted, because of other factors that we didn't include or anticipate, and they don't invalidate our overall theory.

I too pointed out that "consensus" doesn't mean anything, and gave examples where the consensus was wrong. I can remember when continental drift was still being debated, before then the consensus was continents don't drift silly. But like I said, I've long given up on having any constructive debate here, the believers in AGW (ACC) won't listen or answer questions in any meaningful way, and the true deniers won't either.

Let us see you offer up your evidence. Edit: It has now been eleven hours since you posted this question. You have returned once to post addition information and would no doubt have seen more than one request asking you to provide your evidence.

As I type this you have still provided nothing other than an augment against scientific consensus. Though consensus does not make scientific fact, lack of discord among climate scientists speaks volumes in favour of the science that places blame primarily on of the current changing climate on human activity on the planet. Since you have offered up no new evidence to counter the science behind anthropogenic climate change we can now assume that in spite of your diatribe above you lack the evidence that you claim to possess along with any credibility you think you have.

You wrote- "Trust me, I've met and discussed ACC with plenty of the proponents" Trust you? You have no credibility. Credibility, look it up.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.