JohnDB said:
Climate change causes are only correlation and not causation... meaning that there is no imperical evidence of the causes...there is imperical evidence of it happening but the rate is indeterminate because of flawed data, flawed and incomplete models and heavy political agenda influence.
Please give me an example of what you consider to be evidence of causation for any natural process.
While, as deniers love to point out, correlation is not necessarily causation, what they don't want you to think about is that whatever IS the cause of some process or event ABSOLUTELY HAS TO CORRELATE with that process or event. There are hundreds of thousands of years of clear correlation between temperature and CO2. There are mountains of experimental results showing that CO2 absorbs IR radiation from the Earth that no other atmospheric constituent absorbs; that would escape to space were there no CO2 in the atmosphere. There are direct surface and satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation that show that IR transmission in the frequency ranges absorbed by CO2 are affected by their passage through the atmosphere. And finally, by direct bookkeeping and isotopic analysis, an amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere almost exactly equal to the additional 120 ppm that has collected there since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has been identified as the product of the combustion of fossil fuels; ie, it was produced by humans burning coal and oil.
If that is not enough for you to consider human emissions of GHGs the very likely, primary cause of the warming we have experienced over the last 150 years, you aren't reasoning critically.
