The onus is on you to provide credible evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change from sources without a conflict of interest.
Most of the scientific community accepts anthropogenic climate change. You on the other hand can do nothing but pull up commentary that obviously has a conflict of interest if you do a simple search on the author or publisher. I believe there was a recent link provided by your partner in denial a few posts back which was shown to be published by a Heartland author in Forbes, which didn't even require much sleuthing to uncover its bias.
You know what is really hilarious? Every single link provided by you deniers is just commentary on some right wing blog with an interpretative spin. It's never actually from the original scientific research. And that's the best you can do. Most of the time, it's a failed attempt to discredit me or someone else by trying to associate me with something you find distasteful, which is an even weaker rebuttal.
IPCC = Conflict of interest, just like the studies done by oil companies.
Your above statement implies three interesting points:
1. The studies done by the oil companies, and by extension, everyone who buys into their influence, are biased and lack credibility. With regard to this point, all I have to say is thank you for making my point.
2. The assumption that the material I cite is the product of the IPCC. You are wrong on this point - see the third point below. As I stated earlier, I read the scientific journals. Do you? I suspect not. Instead, you read blogs and commentary influenced by big oil. Furthermore, I suspect you seek out material which supports your belief, and you naturally arrive at said biased blogs and commentary, because in your searches, you're unlikely to arrive upon very many real science articles. I can state with a high degree of confidence that this assertion summarizes your methods.
3. The assumption that the IPCC is the body actually doing the research and publishing the findings of that research. With regard to this point, I suggest that you stop your witch hunt and simply read science publications.
Oh yeah - you don't actually study science, because it doesn't support your belief.
On a different note: I have requested more than once that someone provide an explanation of their belief about sea level change, and what might cause it or not cause it. I suspect that the sources the deniers go to don't fully explain it, or if by their searches, they did in fact stumble upon some valid science, they'd find the answer does not agree with their ideology.