You confuse questionable "evidence" with proof.
I haven't presented what you asked for. The forcing factors shown in that graphic for emitted gases were simply calculated by known formula. The confusion here, though, is yours. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is only evidence.
I won't bother with looking
Of course you won't bother looking. I never thought you would. That was the point.
because the basic premise: "Human production (anthropogenic) of small amount/percentage of global atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) above Natural Production~Amounts is the Primary Cause of increased Global Warming="Climate Change"; is an unproven concept and also an illogical one.
You would have difficulty finding 5 scientists in a 1,000 who agree with you on either contention. That should bother you but I strongly suspect it makes you feel justified.
The way science works is first you present the hypothesis:
"Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change results in Global Warming."
No. For one thing, you have those backwards. The hypothesis is that human GHG emissions feeding the greenhouse effect are the primary cause of the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution. That warming is a facet of climate change and, in this case, anthropogenic.
Then you provide evidence and data to support that hypothesis, not "learned opinion".
Correct. And the scientists have done that by the thousands. Unfortunately, what you are choosing to challenge was accepted by essentially all scientists many decades past and no one these days, outside of junior high school general science classes, is bothering to perform such studies. It would be akin to conducting a study to determine if the Earth is round.
Then, if enough evidence and data is presented, along with laboratory process replication in support of the hypothesis, to up the probabilities of "Human Caused"~Anthropogenic, you can advance to the "Hypothesis" becomes a "Theory".
Yes, which is what happened. Surveys of scientists no later than 2004 showed a clear consensus among scientists that they accepted anthropogenic global warming as a valid theory describing the contemporary behavior of our climate.
Further evidence, data, and replications processes in the laboratory conditions will make possible the advance to Anthropogenic Climate Change, equals Global Warming (beyond Natural Causes) being a "Law"~"Accepted Science".
I am curious who you are quoting when you write "Law" ~ "Accepted Science". I would have to completely disagree with your conclusion. Accepted science and scientific laws are not the same thing. Read this from
What Is a Law in Science?:
"Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory, and if the theory is found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works, though. Facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate elements of the
scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else."
and this
'"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomena for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work," Coppinger said.
Coppinger pointed out that the law of
gravity was discovered by
Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is or how it works. It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the theory of
Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is and how it works. '
So, though you were under the impression that you knew enough to lecture me on the scientific method, it turns out that you were the one needed the edification.
Burden of "Proof" throughout the procedures fails upon those whom present and endorse the hypothesis.
Unfortunately, as I said, there are no proofs in the natural sciences and there is no burden of proof aside perhaps for the Saganism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; and note that he says "evidence", not "proof". Scientists conduct studies to test hypotheses and publish their results. No one forces other scientists to repeat the experiments, but some usually do, particularly if the hypothesis is about something important or if they think there was something wrong with the first experiment or the data analysis or the fundamental reasoning. But, I assure you, there is no shortage of experiments conducted to measure how CO2 and the greenhouse effect work.
So far I've not seen any of this done ~ produced. Just a lot of "learned opinion" based upon coincidental circumstances (based upon too short a timeline of measured data to be significant over durational evidence Billions of years) of Earth's climate.
You need to be honest if only with yourself. You aren't a scientist and you obviously don't read scientific journals or books. If you've "not seen any of this done" it's because you haven't looked.
Your turn to avoid being embarrassed.
Along with being a charlatan, huckster and engaged in a scam and con.
I have all of this planet's mainstream scientists providing my source material. Yours comes from slightly less reliable sources. If someone is being a charlatan, a huckster, engaged in a scam and a con, I really think you need to look to whatever sources have told you what you seem to believe. Because I think they have an agenda - protecting the fossil fuel industry - and they are perfectly willing to mislead you in order to advance it.
