Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".
Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.
You're right, it doesn't.
You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.
There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.
And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.
But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.
You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.
There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.
Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).
If you don't understand how science works, then I hope this helps you take a step in the right direction. If you do, however, know this, then you're again exhibiting troll-like tendencies. Ones you apparent claim to be proud and unashamed to show.