| Sorry chap, I've neither flagged nor downvoted your comment (or rather I did downvote it and then reversed that in an effort to preserve your position, which apparently no one is buying). There are a number of sources that claim to counter or disprove the central AGW position as outlined in the IPCC reports that are regularly updated. Having a source isn't an argument, persuading others in the climate, biosphere, and geophysical domains is where it's at .. so far that's over 90% for, few against. Here's a decent overview of Milankovitch cycles that acknowledges their link to cyclic changes in global climate .. that's not been denied in the AGW climate arguments, just that they're not significantly at play in the recent sharp changes over the past centry. https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html My own background is pure|applied mathematics with a transition to exploration geophysics working for mineral resource exploration and some oil and gas application, with later work summerising the state of global resource knowledge for investors. If you can find the sources that support your position you should with a modicum of effort find papers that address those claims. A very good start is the first broadly accepted paper that set out the effect and scale of CO2 added to the atmosphere and flow on water vapor feedback .. most things flow on from there and it's a matter of comparing other factors (actual orbital variation, actual solar flucuations, etc) against the predicatable rise in trapped energy as a result of more insulation. Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (1967) - Syukuro Manabe, Richard Wetherald |