And that's fine, given that I nor that commenter have the data. But if you believe your critique against the science of the matter is something the whole set of climate scientists happen to have overlooked for decades, the burden is on you to read the actual papers and find out if you're right or not.

If you're right and all of them have overlooked it, you'll have material for a hell of a paper yourself: There's nothing more juicy than a paper that mathematically proves that a pile of accepted scientific literature is flawed.

Imagining possible flaws of a paper before reading it is so easy that it's hard to really strike gold (it is equally easy for the authors and reviewers). But it is also an enjoyable way to learn how those flaws have been taken care of.