>>14086152>Screen shot where i said CO2 is ONLYYou said this
You said
>To tie this back to OPs topic, the man made CO2 cult ignores this entirely because it proves CO2 is correlated to climate cycles of earth and not a causation of the of the cycles. The historical levels of CO2 change following changes in the relationship between the strength of earths magnetic field and the current state of both the solar cycles and cosmic cycles.>>No, that's not the only cause of CO2 change.>Not an argumentSo not only did you claim the historical levels of CO2 follow magnetic/solar/ cosmic cycles, you also rejected the fact that CO2 has other causes. LOL, let's see you squirm out of this one.
>You still have not disproven my claim that CO2 levels change in correlation with solar and cosmic radiation.Why would I need to disprove your unfounded and irrelevant claim? You're the one who needs to prove it, not that it's even relevant to this discussion since the current increase in CO2 is already proven to be manmade via isotope analysis.
>The french roasties work is a studying algae blooms in a extremely limited area and adds guesses and assumptions into their abstract that the data does not prove in the least.You'll have to be more specific, I don't see any unfounded assumptions in the paper. Are you now denying the influence of plants and phytoplankton on CO2? It's incredibly ironic since that influence is exactly why we have fossil fuels to burn in the first place. Where do you think all this carbon came from?
>Now, you have been arguing with me and have yet to disprove my personal opinion.As I've already explained to you several times, no one is obligated to disprove your personal opinion. The burden of proof is on you.
>You claimed my assumption are wrong and have offered no proof of your claim.You've said several incorrect things in this thread, you'll have to be more specific.
>When pressed you give an unrelated linkHow is CO2 drawdown unrelated?
