I see that all of the research is based on computer simulations.
No it isn't. Carbon dioxide absorption spectrum is measured. Once you have that, you know the radiative forcing. The rest is details. Complicated details, but details.
As a computer person myself, I can simulate anything you fancy to pay for.
You're telling me you're willing to lie for pay? OK, noted.
There are also some dissenting opinions, although they are really hard to find:
There are "dissenting opinions" on almost anything, including Newtons laws and whether the Earth is flat.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/def...
Even eighteen years ago, when that was written, the data was already pretty much running against the thesis that the writer was asserting. Yes, "taking a different tack, some scientists seek other explanations for climate change." Unfortunately, all of the other explanations proposed so far have been falsified by measurements. A scientist who comes up with a different explanation of warming trends and simultaneously shows that the greenhouse effect is not causing warming would instantly become the most famous atmospheric scientist in the world. So far, however, all the other hypotheses have been shot down.