Basically, the scientist correlate the CO₂ levels with temperature. Yes I know, fake news...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Thanks for posting links to what you consider the best evidence available.

If you read through the comments in the article above that allowed comments, you have some idea of at least some of the "problems" with the various hypotheses put forward for AGW (and the correlations of overall earth temperature and cause with purported ice core measurements of atmospheric CO2).

Since there have been many "interglacial" periods (i.e. NOT an "ice age" that included polar (or elsewhere) ice caps), and many AGW advocates claim that there have been many periods where palm trees grew in the polar regions, there could not possibly be ice core samples from those periods and thus no samples to measure the CO2 non-existent ice core samples.

The more general point is that whenever some evidence for a AGW hypothesis is proven to be "faulty" or "suspect", at least in terms of accuracy, if not wholly, there is a bunch of "hand waving" and a post hoc "explanation" to claim that even though THAT data might be faulty, this other thing over here proves that we're still right.  At some point (already reached in my opinion) one has to admit that the whole hypothesis is faulty, no matter how many post hoc rationalizations are generated. See: Lysenkoism, phrenology, homeopathy, astrology, etc., etc., etc..

Yet weather.com was filled with global warming articles.  Sounds like he's been ostracized from the channel.

Yet weather.com was filled with global warming articles.  Sounds like he's been ostracized from the channel.

Guy sounds a bit    Good for them to kick the crazies out.

Yet weather.com was filled with global warming articles.  Sounds like he's been ostracized from the channel.

I guess you didn't actually watch the interview.

I guess you didn't actually watch the interview.

The guy just trolled you. 

I guess you didn't actually watch the interview.

I skipped through it while at work. My point is that weather.com seems to fully embrace global warming while this guy is a skeptic, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Science fights back against the global warming fraud

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/science_fights_back_against_the_global_warming_fraud.html

It has taken far too long, but the self-correcting mechanisms of science finally are contradicting the global warming fraud. Despite billions of dollars of grants for those who support the so-called “consensus” (itself, a lie), and the fear of retaliation, scholars interested in the truth are publishing a wave of scientific papers contradicting the orthodoxy.

Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.



It’s at least as convincing as the phony, uncorrected Hockey Stick that had to “hide the decline.” Sure, it is one study, and it is Finland (very far north), but there 58 papers this year, already. I am guessing that it might be easier to make the case that the sun has the major influence on climate than to make the case for CO2.

The No Tricks Zone has catalogued 650 skeptic scientific papers already, and as we see, the wave is growing larger.

The huge problem for the Warmists is that “cutting edge research” now works against them.

NEW FINNISH STUDY FINDS NO EVIDENCE FOR MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE

There goes the “consensus”

A new study by researchers at Turku University in Finland found that the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the last century is just 0.01°C.

The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi.

The study found that, “During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”

Kauppinen and Malmi conclude that global temperatures are controlled primarily by cloud cover and that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic.

The study also calls into question the claims of the UN IPCC, which concluded that global temperatures are largely driven by human activity.

While the methods and results of the study can be debated, this once again illustrates how there is no overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming as the media often claims.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Holy crap a 10th of a degree.  Gotta get ready for that snow caps melting and ozone layer disapearing.

That study supports what I have been seeing and repeating for a decade.  Only about 10% of climate change is attributable to man.

Therefore, we could revert to an agrarian, caveman style of existence with no industrial or fossil-fuel-dependent conveniences, and 90% of climate change would continue.  It's a natural, not man-made, effect.  Earth history proves it.  Climate change existed long before the 1900s.