>>11656501>We haven't really seen any global warming for the past decadeThis is is just cherrypicking time intervals.
>Medieval warming periodHe uses a graph based on the temperature in one location as if it shows global temperature. Globally, the medieval warm period is barely noticeable compared to current warming. Pic related.
>The last 10000 yearsAgain he presents a graph showing temperature in one place as if it shows global temperature.
>CO2 is not driving climate, CO2 is not acting as a greenhouse gasThe evidence he presents doesn't support these claims. Showing that interglacial warming was caused by something other than a CO2 increase doesn't show that CO2 can't be a driver of climate at other times. It's also idiotic to say that CO2 was not acting as a greenhouse gas. CO2 always has to act as a greenhouse gas, it doesn't stop being transparent to sunlight and it doesn't stop absorbing and emitting heat just because something else started the warming during an interglacial. And you can't explain interglacial warming without including CO2's contribution.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf>water vapor feedback has never been documented, it's never been seen in the geological recordLOL, since Clark already admits that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, all that needs to be documented is that warming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is documented literally every day and nothing in the geological record of the climate can be explained without taking into account this feedback.
Clark's claims get more and more ridiculous and counterfactual throughout the video. I don't see how anyone who fails at basic logic and gets such basic facts wrong can be called a scientist.
>there is no hotspotThere is:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007 
