, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not the whole argument because we have:<quoted text>^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.
<quoted text>There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
1) the measured absorption spectrum of CO2
2) the prediction that GHG warming will lead to a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere - which is observed by both radiosonde balloon and satellite microwave observation.
3) the prediction that expanding greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations will cause the troposphere to rise - and we have the observations that this is occurring
4) the prediction that GHG gas warming will cause the Earth to radiate less energy back into space than it absorbs from the Sun - and we have the observations that observe that happening too.
Then we add on the fact that we have amazingly detailed data of a very strong correlation between temperature and CO2 in all the proxy climate sets (barring the iceball Earth episodes - for which greenhouse gas warming is thought to have saved Earth from albedo). The correlation is clearly evidence in the instrument data sets as well. All of these things taken together present a cohesive theory. So the argument that correlation doesn't equal causation is a form of cherry picking that ignores the wider spectrum of evidence.