No doubt about it: the earth's climate is changing continuously. Plenty of empirical evidence for that.
Establishing any conclusive bivariate-dominated causation (e.g., CO2 vs. avg. temp) is well beyond the scope of both available empirical data and man's limited understanding of climate-influencing mechanisms and their interactions.
Consensus has nothing to do with scientific method and if allowed to dictate we could still be assuming a geocentric universe. And, of course, it is impossible using any method to provide proof of a negative (e.g., "When they show proof using the scientific method that there is no global warming I will listen.")
As you know, we'll never settle this debate here since there are millions of people out there still debating it and there are mountains of information.
The important thing in the practice of science, as in all human interactions, is demonstrating respect to others who hold differing opinions and/or who have drawn different conclusions from your own. That could start by dropping the politically-loaded term "denier" from the vernacular and just calling scientists who've drawn differing conclusions something like, well...scientists who've drawn different conclusions.
On the topic of a Creator, that's also a fruitless cycle of argument. We can take all of the logic you've presented, invert it 180 degrees, and come at it from the other direction. Yin and Yang. Because we cannot adequately conceptualize God within the context of the science and logic we understand or within the limits of the human mind does not preclude His (Its) existence. There's an awful lot of tangible evidence of a "Creator" for which we have scant other explanation. The absence of the present ability to directly test a hypothesis does not eliminate it from the realm of science.
PEACE, BROTHER. LIFE'S A JOURNEY. EXPLORING IS INTERESTING.