>>10302819>> preferring 5000 years of proxy data to 140 years of well-measured and documented data
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did I prefer proxy data to instrumental?>And you have guts to tell me that I cherrypick the data?
Yes, because you clearly cherrypicked the data.>Again, more than 140 years of CO2 pumping into atmo, over 40% increase in CO2 levels and pathetic 0.8° Celsius increase (sourced by NASA).
So first you said that natural warming occurred in the past, now you refuse to compare that natural warming to present warming. If today's warming is pathetic, what was the warming in past? Non-existent? Negligible?>There's bigger difference in temperature between cloudy and sunny weather in the same area within minutes of the same day than entire industry managed to create over 140 years span.
Do you not understand how averages work?>Don't try to doge it with "muh global climate change is more important" - global climate is an average of all local climate changes.
Yes, exactly. This is hilarious, you're debunking yourself. What do you think happens when you average a lot of large positive and negative numbers?>You still didn't mention why proxy data clearly shows that historically temperature always rose before CO2 levels.
Because historically CO2 levels did not instigate warming, orbital eccentricity did, triggering various feedback loops. One of those feedback loops is between warming and CO2 and water vapor being released from oceans. Today however, manmade emissions are causing the warming which is then triggering the same feedback loops. According to orbital eccentricity, we should be cooling right now, according to the natural cycle. Why are you ignoring this?>Is that what I'll find in "basic climatology textbook"? The info on avoiding problematic topics?
If you did you would see what you consider a problem is well studied by climatologists. You would also see how current warming is different from natural warming.