Look, Mr. Pretend Climatolgist, Should I believe real climatologists & NASA or a denier like you?
You shouldn't believe me...but you should believe what is being said in peer reviewed literature published in respected scientific journals, even when it doesn't conform to what you believe.
And really the Skeptic crowd has no overwhelming evidence of anything.
I suppose more lies from a liar shouldn't be a surprise....after all, liars gotta lie.
And of course we have provided overwhelming evidence that your OP claim was false. I have provided more than 30 peer reviewed scientific papers published in respected scientific journals compared to zero, zip, nada, nothing, none from you so of course the evidence I have provided has overwhelmed anything you had to say..
The fact that you deny all science that doesn't agree with you doesn't make the science false, it only proves beyond any doubt that you are a cherry picking science denier...the very last person whose opinion on anything should be taken as credible.
Any moron can see the rapid rise in global temperatures. They see the rapid rise in CO2 levels.
That is a bald faced lie. You have been tricked into believing a bit of statistical sleight of hand. If you look at individual regions in the world, very few are showing any sort of warming trend and none of them are great enough that you would be able to recognize them over the span of years.
I am well past 60, and in my lifetime, the average global temperature, whatever that useless number is worth has risen less than half a degree. You can't even differentiate a half a degree of temperature change in your local climate between morning and mid morning and you are claiming that you can differentiate a half a degree of change over the span of years. You are a liar and quite stupid to have been tricked into believing such nonsense.
What part of the world do you live in...lets take a look at the regional weather for half a century or so and see just how impossible your claim is.
And I provided no less than 8 peer reviewed, papers published in respected scientific journals that said that the human contribution to the total CO2 concentration is vanishingly small. Thus far, you have provided nothing more than your own uneducated opinion that we are responsible. Nor will you find any peer reviewed science saying that we are the drivers of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That nonsense is boilerplate for the consumption of dupes..not actual science.
Even being dumbasses you know that more CO2 in the atmosphere => heightened greenhouse effect => warmer temps.
So you say...but to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the supposed warming caused by our CO2 emissions has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our CO2 emissions...nor is there a single piece of observed, measured evidence which established a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. There is no empirical evidence to support that claim....anywhere. It is a belief, not a fact, not even a theory. At present it remains a pretty poor hypothesis.
What is made up about that Mr Scientist
It is lies....demonstrable lies. The fact that you can't see it doesn't change the fact.
Again, what part of the world do you live in...lets take a look at the most ridiculous of your claims. Lets look at your regional climate for half a century or so and see exactly what sort of change you have experienced and see if you still want to claim that you can feel the change in the climate.