Climate Change, page-660

I have posted numerous sources that you just reject and assert they are wrong.

Not only have I debunked the sources that you posted (and felt the need to hide away without a rebuttal because you knew I was right, I'll post it again here)

Ok, I'm trying to read this from your screen shot, because the paper doesn't appear to be available on open access.

It's a pretty hard read, and I cant tell if the paper is just poorly worded, or if it things have been omitted. If you have a link to a PDF or something that'd be perfect, but I'll try make do.

In the paper he writes "Twelve month mean values from 1981 to 2019 indicate the temperature has increased 0.506K and CO2 concentrations 71.6ppm during 38 years (Figure 1) If the temperature is controlled by the CO2 then 100pm could increase global temperatures by 0.71K".

Now, I cant make it out exactly, but it looks like Figure 1 is temperatures of Moana Loa (Hawaii). But hold on, Moana Loa isn't representative of global temperatures? Why did the author suddenly refer to a 100pm increase in CO2 leading to a global increase in temperatures by 0.71K when he was referring to twelve month mean values of Moana Loa? Moreover, there is no discussion on the local climate of Moana Loa. I had a quick "google" and it seems the tropical region experiences relatively warm temperatures year round with a September average high of 27C and a February low of 24 degrees C. That is not much variation at all. Take for example, Melbourne, which has ranges of 12 degrees C+ between Summers and Winters. Again just a pretty obvious flaw to use this as your base temperature readings. Almost like its been cherry picked.

Further down, again, he writes "As stated above, 100ppm change in CO2 concentration should increase the global temperature by 0.71K" - This is flawed reasoning and surely you must accept this? Global temperatures are not based off one temperature graph and you and I could both find individual locations with temperatures getting much much warmer, or much more colder. Global average temperatures are taken from many (I don't know the exact number, I'm guessing in the thousands) datasets.

With regards to the second part of the paper, again, its quite hard to read, and I need to see the figures a bit more clearer. CO2 concentrations have been in a steady state for over eight hundred thousands years. So I don't know how the Author has reconciled eight hundred thousand years of "constant" (say, 170ppm and 300pm) and then a sudden increase from the industrial revolution to now over 400pm. (Source: Based on figure by Jeremy Shakun,)





Once again, you use emotive phrasing to qualify your denouncements.
So let me break down your quote real quick and then leave you with a final note.

"There is no statistically robust dataset which proves that CO2 is driving deadly climate change."

There are plenty of statistical datasets that show CO2 is one of the main factors that drive climate change.
Stop using emotive language. As I have said before and you ignore - what is "deadly" to one person, might not affect someone else in the slightest.

You are welcome to respond with whatever evidence you have, or cite a source that supports your claim, but you cannot just ignore the evidence and repeat the same claim again and again -- that's mindless trolling. This is a forum where facts can be discussed and debated, not a post board of misinformation.