Here's the problem with that: The physics don't change just because a different scientists is looking in a different direction.

You can't be lazy and pretend that most of the effects don't matter just because you like how one specific action supports your idea. I will be specific:

Lets use CO2 specifically as an example:

The worry, official story and explanation is that shortwave IR from the sun heats up the ground. The ground then backradiates longwave IR (because it's a lower temperature than the sun) and a few bands in the IR spectrum that CO2 interacts strongly with. So, instead of flying relatively unimpeded through the atmosphere, some of the backradiated IR gets absorbed and results in heating in the atmosphere.

That is all accurate and true. In order to prove the theory, a major proof can be done by filling a jar with a ballon overtop with CO2 and then shining an infrared light through the jar. You will accurately demonstrate that the gas will expand with heating and you will demonstrate that you can heat the gas with infrared, something that doesn't happen with all atmospheric gasses.

Environmentalists stop thinking at this point and run to the papers screaming about global warming because theres a correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise from ~1960 to ~2005. Not only have they stopped thinking, they've confused the professor because there's still another 45 minutes left to class time, the bells only just rung and we just got started.

Now what are the ways that CO2 could increase in temperature:

• It could be excited from collisions
• It could be excited energy from infra-red
• It could be excited by other frequencies of EMR
• It could be excited by cosmic radiation

What are the ways it could lose heat or otherwise reach equilibrium with it's environment:

• It could lose it through collisions
• It could lose it by emitting quanta of radiation in the form of infrared radiation

The bolded part is the key. CO2 actually makes for a phenomenal cooling gas because it readily looses heat energy in the form of infrared.

To run the balloon-jar experiment to prove it, all you have to do is use a clear balloon and heat the CO2 jar and the control jar with a regular heater. The CO2 jar will deflate faster because it loses the infrared.

Now think about clouds: Everyone knows that a cloudy night is a warmer night than a cloudless night. Why? Because the clouds trap the infrared because water vapor interacts strongly with almost the entire infrared spectrum. Water vapor actually functions as a thermal insulator and greenhouse gas because it becomes so thick in the atmosphere that it actually makes the atmosphere opaque. The effects of water vapor on climate from a greenhouse gas standpoint is what an increadibly strong greenhouse gas looks like.

But that's not even the worst of it. Look at the charts from NASA: every planet in the solar system is getting hotter and I'm not being and ass, here's an MIT article about pluto getting hotter https://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto

The temperature of the planets, wether we like it or not, is based on atmospheric pressure, orbital distance and solar activity.

Those are your drivers of climate.

If you want to know why clmate changes? it's because we have a semi-stable orbit around an unstable nuclear catastrophe that regularly blows off chunks of ionised plasma and sometimes hits us directly with them. It waxes and wanes and our own orbit gets stretched and pulled and made more or less concentric at times.

Sometimes a direct hit CME strips away a bunch of atmosphere and decreases global pressure, causing global cooling.

Sometimes it gets more active for a period of time and it gets hotter like what we see in tree rings.

Sometimes you get what happened in the little ice age and the sun is so quiet that there's no sunspots for years on end and the planet freezes.

The idea that the sun is a stable source of heat for a planet on a constantly varying orbit is rediculous.