So what is "real science"? Your response perhaps, in which you denounce all points and sources presented above and counter with a couple finds of your own, namely that most people are "shitty farmers" and that plants will cope with increased CO2 levels? Also, are you really arguing that CO2 levels are are depleting? They're definitely not. If you're going to ramble and throw some fancy words in, at least get your story straight.

Real science in the case of climate research is not getting some practical experience and talking shit about experts by trusting your gut. It's amassing and analyzing fairly gathered empirical data, weighing their support for central hypotheses and thereby coming to conclusions as objectively as possible, which can then gain support and result in a scientific consensus.

Evidence such as this: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/