>>11601232>still lying. The trends are not correlated >>11601062Yes you are still lying, since that does not show the modern temperature trend. The temperature data ends in 1855. The modern temperature trend can be seen here
>>11600849, here
>>11601041 and here
>>11601204. But you know this already. You know you're explicitly lying, but you do it anyway. Do you have any shame?
>which is what I disagree withThen argue against it instead of things I never said. Unfortunately, we both know you can't, since you have no actual knowledge of the topic we're discussing and can only straw-man and lie.
>I believe there is no unprecedented warming this>>11601041 (You) is insignifcant to thisHow is it insignificant? It shows the warming you delusionally deny.
>I believe there is no evidence to believe anthropogenic climate is real.You were provided with plenty of evidence. Where is your response to the radiative forcing of CO2, shown in
>>11600553 and
>>11601041? "I disagree" is not a response to scientific evidence, it's an admittal that you have no argument.
>for what data??? You said the CO2 concentration I gave you are a lie. What data is telling you that?
>2 standard deviations above mean for a data set.Why 2 standard deviations?
>I'd guess above 260ppm.So you're basing your correlation on a guess of an arbitrary standard? But you supposedly already know about Milankovich cycles, which are not caused by CO2 levels reaching some arbitrary level. Do you ever get tired of being BTFO?
Not to mention that CO2 concentration has been much higher than 260 ppm over the last 100 years, and cooling has not begun. The opposite has occurred, rapid warming. So your alleged correlation is false.
>Are you actually so retarded you don't understand the concept of high?I do, which is why I can see that high CO2 is correlated with high temperatures.
