Since this comes up a lot, a quick run though of the testable, falsifiable, science that supports a human cause of recent trends in global mean temperature.pic.twitter.com/VfjAuBgQQt
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
This too is of course falsifiable. If one could find a model system that matches all of the previously successful predictions in hindcasts, and gives a different attribution, we could test that. [Note this does not (yet) exist, but let's keep an open mind].
We can also look at the testable, falsifiable, theories that were tested, and failed.
Solar forcing? Fails the strat cooling test.
Ocean circulation change? Fails the OHC increase test
Orbital forcing? Fails on multiple levels 
If you have a theory that you don't think has been falsified, or you think you can falsify the mainstream conclusions, that's great! We can test that too! (But lots of people have tried this already so expect there to be an answer already).
PS. Actually, it's even a bit harder. Not only would you need to find a theory that does as well as the current theory, but you'd also need to show why the current theory isn't operative.
Where's the graph for changes in cloud coverage/cloud albedo? Satellite cloud coverage data is analyzable, right?
Yes, but noisy and plagued with artifacts. The impacts of human caused climate change can still be seen though https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma02110i.html …
Could someone tap Bloomberg on the shoulder to update this widget?
Global temperatures are not rising and show no trend. The fluctuations are sea ice extent, snow albedo or cloud changes. Not CO2.pic.twitter.com/aJfIa8J656
oh look a graph what happened to the hockey stick
You forgot "Is it the albedo?" 
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.