>>11893077I didn't misunderstand your post, I directly responded to it. I asked you what data outside of the "140 year window" calls AGW into question. Of course, I ignored that your premise is false from the start. The entire history of Earth's climate is taken into account and supports AGW.
>while ignored that big fireball in the skyWhere in climatology has the Sun been ignored?
>as well as the fact that Earth's climate has been hotter in the prehistoric past and will most likely be hotter once more again in the future, long after humanity is wiped out.And how does that invalidate AGW?
You utterly failed to explain any mechanism behind your claims.
