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.<quoted text>
And how long is the historical record? Compare that to how long the earth has had a climate and you discover that we have only recorded a minor fraction. That research has discovered that the thawing perifrost is releasing CO2 and CH4. Which makes the rising CO2 level an effect and not a cause. Also, you forgot that plants also asorb CO2, and produce O2 in the process.
Yes, facts are facts. The CO2 levels in the Cambrian were higher and the world was lush with life. AGW was disproven in various studies and the reason why you no longer hear about it in the media where it is now called climate change. That many climate scientist have now disproved AGW with other studies.
AGW was actually disproved both scientifically and statistically.
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.