The global climate system is dynamic, continuously changing and adjusting. Simple plots of temperatures measured by commonly used methods do indeed indicate some warming has occurred over many decades (depending upon the points of reference). Certain computer modelers (but not all of them) claim that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of this change and so much so that it must be regulated to prevent the entire planet from being destroyed. But other qualified computer modelers as well as the observable evidence and historical scholarship do not support the claims of runaway catastrophic global warming. This is an artifact of the “post modern” university where ideas are often thought to be “true for everyone” just because they are “believed by someone” regardless of the evidence. However, making policy decisions and regulations based on such a belief is arbitrary at best and usually very destructive. Sound climate policy decisions and regulations must be best on sound observable science and historical scholarship with the support of computer modeling to determine what is most likely to be “true for everyone” regardless of whether any particular policy or regulation advocate believes otherwise.
(By the way, computer model printouts are not “hard evidence” or “hard data.” They are representations, speculations, estimates, and projections.) Even so, hard evidence is not “neutral”. The interpretation of “evidence” does indeed depend upon presuppositions. If such presuppositions are incorrect or falsified then the interpretation of the evidence is suspect at best and most likely false. If something is considered “true for everyone” just because it is believed, then anything (even the opposite claim) can be considered “true for everyone” in absence of any supporting evidence. This really gets us nowhere in science, policy, legislation, or regulation.