Thanks for saying my response was well argued, very generous of...

Thanks for saying my response was well argued, very generous of you.

You said:
CO 2 emissions have not been proved as the primary driver of the mild degree of heat increase since 1900.
Correlation does not mean causation nor are laboratory results relevant to the complex global factor interplay.

The word I highlight here is "proved" science doesn't provide proof, you look for proof in mathematics. What science looks for is evidence. Correlation is not the same thing as causation but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the evidence. I can put my hand on a red-hot stove and you can say it was not the cause of my third-degree burns if you like.... but you should demonstrate this claim by putting your hand on the red-hot stove too!

It's the same with the climate. When the correlation is so close - CO2 emissions compared to climate change in the 70+ years since meaningful records began (Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory, established 1956, the US NOAA) - there is no better explanation, especially when the observations match the hypothesis so closely. It's so close it's looking very much like the hand on the stove! This correlation, IIRC, was in the graph held up by Brian Cox to demolish that clown Malcolm Roberts on Q&A (yes, the ABC) a few years ago. Cox also quoted NASA and its climate work and pointed out another correlation between climate denial and believing conspiracy theories like the moon landing was faked - by NASA of course! Flat earth hypothesis is not far behind in silliness.

Wait, didn't I say there's no point having this argument YET AGAIN with climate deniers and indeed flat-earthers? I'll stop now!