You are mixing up different things.
Our planet has gone through intense weather and drastic climate change long before we were here and will do so long after were gone..
Right. Human-induced climate change is not instead of other factors that change the climate; it is in addition to other factors that change the climate.
The most significant effect humans have is blaming it on shit (carbon, pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin, etc.).
This is not merely silly, but deliberately stupid. Or, more accurately, straw man. Nobody is "blaming pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin."
I have no patience with deliberate stupidity.
and then hocking horseshit to morons to fix it (carbon credits,
Now, you are really mixing different things. Understanding the causes of climate variation, and realizing that the human effect on climate pretty much matches what would be expected from the greenhouse effect models, is completely independent of what, if any, response should be taken to mitigate that effect.
regulations that don't affect the gross emitters of the world, divining rods, sacrifices, crusades, circumcision, rain dances, etc.)
Ah, back to sarcasm and deliberate stupidity.
without any actual evidence that the problem is due to their claimed cause,
Last time I checked, nineteen different global climate models are being run by groups on four continents. They pretty much all agree on the overall effect of carbon dioxide on climate, although the details vary somewhat. Which should be pretty non-controversial, since the basic physics is well understood. There are no climate models being run by any groups on any continent that don't show the effect.
that the problem is fixable by us, or that their proposed solution will fix the problem.
Again: a completely different question. You don't have to deny the basic physics of climate in order to ask whether proposed solutions will work. The argument "I don't like the solutions proposed, so therefore the problem does not exist" is not a good argument.
In fact, the opposite seem to be true-- there has been so much useless debate spent on arguing against idiots who want to deny the science that any debate about the cost, benefit, and efficacy of solutions has been completely short circuited. If you think that it is a valuable debate to ask what proposed solutions would cost, and whether they would work at all, it would be useful to actually do that debate, instead of the "none of the actual scientists knows anything, they're all in on a global hoax."