First, the bad news. They started publishing studies in peer reviewed journals back in 2008 that disproved AGW and since then there has been numerous studies published that disproved AGW. To the point that only a few left overs like yourself are the only ones left who still are hanging in there. It went the way of the consensus and that was into the trash heap. That is the thing about a theory, all it takes is one person discovering one major error and it isn't a theory anymore.<quoted text>
Silly. We can study paleontologically going back billions of years. There's just more uncertainty when we use proxies of past climate. That doesn't mean we know nothing.
Silly again. CO2 is both an effect (especially initially with the Milankovitch cycles) AND a cause (later, & MUCH larger) of warming. The increased insolation with Milankovitch changes causes only slight warming; there must be positive feedbacks, including rising CO2, decreasing albedo as ice melts &, as warming continues, methane release. These feedbacks cause the vast majority of the warming we see during an interglacial.
Yes, CO2 levels were very high in the Cambrian, & probably had been so since they helped to break the last snowball earth event. However, the sun was ~4% dimmer then - BIG difference. Those things balanced out, making temps moderate.
AGW/CC has NEVER been "disproven," since more & more information over time has only verified the basic truth of the theory. It has made ~17-20 correct predictions, depending on how you count them.
Models are ALWAYS being adjusted to reflect new data, & this process has increased their accuracy over time.
Next time try linking actual science instead of the denier claptrap you always post.
Of course you can't link the NASA site you promised Wallop10 that "disproved" AGW/CC because it doesn't exist. All legitimate science organizations (with a few exceptions, like petroleum geologists, who are neutral) support the consensus on AGW/CC. More than 99.8% of scientific papers over the past 20 years support the consensus, less than 0.2% disbelieve it.
You'd get less consensus if you said "it's Tuesday" for goodness' sake. It's FAR beyond reasonable doubt that AGW/CC is correct.
And yes, we can study paleontologically going back billions of years, problem is that isn't the same as someone recording the high and low on a sheet of paper after reading it off a measuring device. And your claim that the sun was 4% weaker balancing it out is also a blow for the whole concept that CO2 is the cause. The sun changes in cycles and if CO2 is the cause then the sun being 4% weaker would not matter. It would matter if sun was a major source of climate change. Then it would mean that CO2 plays less of a part. Yet the real truth is that the earth during the Cambrian was a lush place full of life. We have the fossils to prove that. In fact much of the guesses about the climate have to do with those fossils.