"It may be very heavy going TIA, but it's consistent and very convincing..."

I skimmed the article (I don't believe you've had time to digest it thoroughly, Don(Wyziwyg)T): convincing it may be, but only that carbon dioxide & methane atmospheric constituents have been affected by human activity for longer than is generally thought. OK: I accept that; but my argument is unaffected: I asked for evidence that human activity had affected climate, not that it had affected carbon dioxide & methane, which I accept.

"... and the main argument of the other side seems to be "I don't believe it, so it can't be true""

You should try reading the arguments of "the other side" with your eyes, and more importantly, your mind open, Don(Wyziwyg)T.