I don't want to clog up the main thread so I'll respond here. You're entitled to your own views and I just want to talk about this civilly. Not trying to accuse you or give you any hate. I just want to discuss this Ed Berry that you've mentioned a couple times.
First, just looking into his twitter page, he immediately mentions his political views and support for Trump. Sure, he can have his views, but they're so blatantly intertwined with his climate positions that it makes me skeptical. His climate findings seem to always involve him forcing his political beliefs.
Additionally, in his LinkedIn, he says this:
"As a result, my paper nullifies the scientific base of all climate laws, regulations, treaties, and even education. According to the scientific method, my prof that this IPCC theory is wrong overturns all scientific papers that claim to support the theory. My paper is now a basis to legally overturn all laws and regulations that are based upon this IPCC theory."
That's such a bold claim for one paper to make. His insistence that his one paper completely disproves consensus from NOAA, IPCC, and various other groups' scientists is quite unprofessional and makes me doubtful. You mention that "people can't accept the possibility they could be at least partially wrong on this subject," but this statement from Berry and his general ideas epitomize that stubborn attitude that you say others have.
Again, I'm not trying to attack you, I just wanted to throw in my thoughts about this discussion. I encourage you not to focus on specific climate scientists that have only one viewpoint, when so many others disagree. As @Tenochtitlansaid, I'm personally going to trust the general scientific consensus from the IPCC at this time. I agree that we can't attribute every extreme climate event to AGW and I understand your view, but I'm going to trust the majority of scientists.