Okay, you don't like consensus. Got that. You don't trust things just because a consensus of scientists agree.
Now, where do you get your science? You can't possibly verify physics up through Newton's time by yourself. There's far too many things to do. You're going to have to take some of this stuff on some sort of faith. The neat thing about science is that you can check things. If you ask about Catholic theology, say, you'll find a very large number of things that you can't possibly verify. If you ask about science, you can pick any individual thing and verify it for yourself (it may take some time to learn how to do that, of course). If two theologians disagree, there's no method of picking who's right. If two scientists disagree, there's a method to resolve it. Science lives on consensus, but it has ways to break up false consensuses and allow effective dissent.
You also have a lot of strange views. You can find papers on the satellite observations. You can find papers on the comparisons of projections to reality. It's all out there. It's not hidden. You also seem to think that almost all climate scientists completely disregard the truth, and have a certain political agenda that doesn't vary worldwide. Have you ever thought about what things would have to be true for that to be true?