[vidarh]

I have, and the dramatic change correlating with the rise of human release of co2 makes it highly improbable that it is natural. But as I said: If it somehow is natural we're far more screwed so we better hope it isn't, because if it is natural the cost and resource impact to protect us against the effects would be far more brutal.

[chiefalchemist]

The climate has risen before, and there were no humans around. None. And what then explains that increase.

I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.

[IIsi50MHz]

But…you're correlating previous climate changes (which had much slower rates) with "Even though this one measures daramatic'ly different, it's the same.".

As some others have asked you, would you be so kind as to please suggest other sources for either the required energy inputs, or the required reduction in heat losses, so as to provide other plausable explanations for the available data?

We agree that corelation is not causation. I suppose we should also agree that ignoring a correlation when choosing what to investigate would not be science.