run the data.

You actually gave me a good idea. Since CO2 is slowly rising, but with a overlaid sinusoid, I could create a control, picking data points that are years apart, but have the same CO2 concentration. So I can look at cooling vs temperature at the same CO2.

No significant trend. Lovely.

Then I picked datapoints with the same temperature, but different CO2. Significant cooling trend! how lovely.

Thing about science is that it isn't about preaching, it isn't about knowing how things are, it is about asking good questions and listening carefully to the (data) answers

Try it sometime.

going to give publication another shot

also

The "evidence" you (haven't) provided is a fucking graph of temp changes after sunset, as if the greenhouse effect only occurs after sunset

If you understood anything, you'd see that this is one of the only ways to look at the actual effect of CO2, without making assumptions about the effect of the SUN, which is so complex we barely grasp it.

With the latest models, Total Solar Irradiance has now become part of the picture. That's great, and all, but its is still mind numbingly incomplete.

Our atmosphere is directly heated through MHD interactions between the global electric circuit and charged solar winds. The (weakening) magnetosphere really changes how cosmic rays interact to form clouds. Solar winds directly heat the upper atmosphere. None of which is in the models. None of which is controlled for.

So instead of pretending that we can model the sun's effects, how about we find ways to look at existing data in a way that excludes the giant confounding factor that is the only reason the earth is not a frozen ball of rock.