There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
thread. One is "Believe or belief". Another is "proof". Neither
have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.

"Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.

"Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
disciplines.

It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
scientific method. No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
is beyond criticism based on new data. However, there are rules for
presenting criticism. Any valid data contradicting the current
warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
would get top billing.

The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. This
requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
chancy endeavor at best.

Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . They don't worry much about
being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
set will change their models and theories. The study of climate
change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
it.

If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. The
popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. Avoid too the
radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
more sinister. Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
American or New Scientist.