Nor any other skeptic that I’ve met. This back and forth is typical:
Scientist: I have created hundreds of variants to determine the causes of climate change, all have required the use of greenhouse gases. This is an observational truth.
Skeptic: Have you considered that other things could cause this?
Scientist: Yes. Many times. Other factors are not sufficient enough to explain climate change. Can you demonstrate or present a model that can account for the changes experienced using these other things?
I hate to even qualify the above speakers as skeptics. Skeptics are important, but the skepticism that is expressed here towards an abundance of observational evidence in favor of a self-type of understanding isn’t skepticism — it is just ignorance.