Global warming makes sense to me because I can observe pollution being pumped into the air constantly, and I can understand that the wide-scale burning of things generates heat. I'm open there to the distant possibility that it could be wrong for some reason I don't understand, but I'm willing to accept it.

Also, you seem to think that an appeal to ignorance has something to do with the common lexical meaning of ignorance, which it doesn't? Maybe I'll give you a free pass there, since I could be misinterpreting what you're saying. Appeal to ignorance means that I believe something to be true because you can't prove it false, or that I believe something to be false because you can't prove it true. Neither of those things is the case. In fact, my entire argument is basically the exact opposite of that - that the possibility of insufficient understanding always exists on either side, excepting things that are tautological or can be derived logically from absolute, indisputable fact (of which there are few). Given that this possibility always exists, I am going to interpret all OTHER facts and arguments presented to me through the lens of my own experience and rationality. To do anything BUT that is preposterous.

The fundamental disagreement we are having seems to be that you read those articles and were convinced that they had sufficient and sound premises and logical arguments. I read those articles and was not convinced of all three of those things. Where exactly my disagreement lies is not really the point.

When you say "the fiction I invented" you're saying it's a fiction because you already believe it's a fiction, rather than by providing actual evidence that it's fiction. That's called circular logic. If you start with the premise that I'm wrong, it doesn't matter how logical or illogical your argument is from that point; I don't care about the logic if I think the premise is false. What I invented wasn't a "fiction," nor it is a "fact." It was a "possible explanation." I think that's no different than the experts you've cited, regardless of any consensus among them or not. I lack evidence for my premise, but I'm not actually claiming my premise is true - I'm saying it's POSSIBLE that it's true, and I don't know. You think it's false because it's in conflict with something else you believe is true, which is fine - I don't think that thing that you believe is true, I think it's merely a possible truth, also. You think their evidence and logic is both convincing and conclusive, and I don't.

EDIT: Regarding that last post by TristramShandy, I'm not arguing that plants haven't been artificially selected ever since humans became capable of agriculture and cultivation. Never was arguing that, and I wish people would stop implying I had ever made that argument.