I guess the bottom line is, is there any evidence whatsoever that you would accept as proving your current position wrong? I've stated my ten year window, you could at least strap on a pair of balls and make a decision.
When you can point to the inland beach where Holland used to be, or Bangledesh being half the size it used to be. Hell, I'd settle for the day they evacuate Diego Garcia. In short, if there isn't a meter of sea level rise in your lifetime, the whole thing was a crock of shit.
The important point to Mojib Latif's work is that the warmists now have "peer reviewed research" that they can point to to cover basically ANY pattern we see in the next 10 years. It gets cooler, Mojib Latif was right, it gets warmer he was wrong but everyone else was right; neither disproves AGW but the warmist science was "right" if either happens. It's pretty damn easy to make an "accurate" prediction if you move the bullseye to within arm's reach and make it 10 feet across. Literally anything short of the apocolypse is covered by their predictions.
The tree ring data is a mixed bag, they have indeed been cherry picked to exclude those trees not showing increases. Many of them have been excluded specifically because they were in disagreement with the surface stations. Those surface stations have been chosen as the more accurate source, yet tree rings are making up for the lack of stations elsewhere in the record to prove that it's warmed.
Indeed, this is why anyone with half a brain should have seen the big red flag waved by the "hide the decline" trick. Not that they resorted to a statistical trick to hide the decline to begin with - it's unfortunate terminology but at least the "debunkers" got that part right; the trick itself is not a huge reason for concern. It's the fact that they used the observed temp for the last portion of the record rather than the tree rings, despite the rings telling them the exact opposite of what the thermometers were saying. Either the thermometers were wrong, or the tree rings were not the reliable temperature record they assumed they were - the two disagree bad enough that the rings and thermometers can't *both* be right, but that is exactly what they assume. then for some magical unexplained reason the tree data goes screwy, coincidentally when they have "reliable" thermometer readings to replace the "previously-reliable-but-now-completely-wrong" tree rings.