I'm not particularly interested in responding to copy/pasted bullet points from discredited sources. I'll simplify my response:
Typical response but it really doesn't surprise me. You glance at my list of 24 points to refute climate alarmists and you are either too lazy to take the time to read them, much less respond to them or do not possess the knowledge to adequately refute them. So instead you use the trusty old excuse that they are from discredited sources so that you don't have to respond. Very revealing.
Then, also typical, you bring out the colorful charts. Yes I'm sure they are enough to placate the simple minded and distract them with pretty colors but, just as you pointed the finger at me saying you only want to address me if I use my own words and not copy/paste from other sources, your nasa link and pictures are not your own. They are copy/pasted from other sources.
But let's play patty cake and go ahead and address your 4 points:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
I agree. Yes C02 can be deadly but as I stated in my previous post:
"Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
And
"It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."
Earth's temperatures over the past 800,000 years correspond directly with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
Temperature increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in what was known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming.
The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates.
The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are rising at a rate never before seen on Earth, and the rate has been increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing as a direct result of burning fossil fuels.
Let's address these 2 last points together for the sake of convenience.
I agree the rate is increasing but:
Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of temperature and climate change.
It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.
So in essence, my point is, whether you deny it or not, There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. Yes yes, I know you will say but but what about the charts? What about the mountains of studies conducted and research done?
A good example of this is the Michael Mann hockey stick chart
But in modern times when McShane and Wyner input all of the exact same data as Mann in an effort to duplicate his results, though they tried repeatedly they were not able to replicate his results. As you see from their chart.
And of course climate alarmists will immediately tell us this too was already debunked long ago but you see that's the thing. Your so called experts will say that their data is the ONLY accurate data then our experts will debunk it and then yours will debunk our debunk and on and on into infinity.
Make no mistake, there are very intelligent scientists on both sides of this but the difference is the left has the superior funding and the support of the media. Which makes it much easier to quickly stamp out results that are presented to the contrary and thus just label them as fake, untrue and conspiracy.
This picture sums it up quite adequately.