>>11177885I really just want to call you an idiot and be done with you, but I know you'll just use that as an opportunity to say something along the lines of: "prove it wrong though".
Jesus mate, understand you are exhibiting a fundamental misinterpretation of the abovementioned data and showing that you would prefer to stay ignorant to publicly available evidence where papers proposing the theory that CO2 concentration can have a causation to global temperature dates back to the 1890s and further papers that support these claims published in 1955 - continuing on to today, which then means there is greater than a century worth of publicly available data. You are choosing to remain ignorant of this so you can align yourself with a Russian 4chan(nel) poster posted on /pol/.
Again, I really just want to call you an idiot, but I can't - this is the reality of /sci/. I just hope you understand the gravity and irony of your post. On the science board you claim someones post one a messageboard reliable and valid enough to challenge evidence surrounding climate put fouth before any human was born on this planet currently alive.
