Unqualified guys? Who have doctorates in Climatology and are leading researchers in their field? Shill you fucking fail. Go back to your playbook and find another idiotic phrase to say.
I'll let you find the inconsistency in your statements
Seriously, someone who has a doctorate can be just as corrupted and/or wrong as anybody else. What counts are the arguments, and those you indirectly cited utterly fail to see the broader picture.
Have you heard about Milankovitch cycles? Basically, they are periodic changes in the planet's eccencentricity and axial tilt that affects climate, and its effect have been consistent for millions of years. Its primary effect is an oscilliation of +/- 2°C in the global mean temperatures. Its periodicity and its effects have been very consistent, and according to this effect, we should be in the -1°C period right now - but the atmosphere is actually getting hotter, and the upward slope fits perfectly with industrialisation. The few hundreds of years during which the mean temperature has been getting hotter is way too short a period for it to have been triggered by any natural cause (other than the sudden fall of a gigantic meteorite or a very sudden and intense period of volcanic activities)
Also globally there are more trees growing now then at any other time in recorded history.
Even if that was true (which I greatly doubt), this can't possibly compensate for the ongoing deforestation. Please reply to bryant.coleman's arguments with sources if you want to prove that your statement is true.
I applaud the reforestation effort and other advances that are mentionned in this link, but nowhere does it say there's more tree now than there was a few hundred years ago. So you can't base your arguments on this, nor say that the graph I posted is fake. It says there are more trees now in the USA than there was in 1920, that's cool, but it's still half less than during colonisation. Also, there are locations where deforestation is quite worse than in the USA (Brazil, Canada)
And it is laughable that you counter real science with a link to a Wiki.
Your youtube video is more credible?
Wiki is adequate to settle internet arguments.