> The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. This is not a fact, this is a theory. This is common in 'scien

> The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. This is not a fact, this is a theory. This is common in 'science' that scientists believing something 'should be happening' and then attempt to pencil in details after-the-fact to explain something that doesn't fit their preconceived model. > Citation needed. From [1]: > Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly. If you heat something, it's going to get gradually hotter. If you increase the amount of energy you use to heat it, it's going to get hotter still. If the average temperature goes about X naturally, which in turn causes increased water vapor, which in turn increases the greenhouse effect, then we have a positive feedback loop that was started by natural forces. > if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics How does one even make such a measurement? Are we talking about just the atmosphere? Or just the ocean? Or the ice masses? Or the land masses? In any case, imagine a space heater in a room. The heater will be hot, the rest of the room relatively cooler. The cooler parts of the room are going to accept the heat faster than the warmer parts of the room. Why should the planet be any different? > Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. Show me the historic atmospheric H2O levels. You can't dismiss water vapor without data showing that it was less in the past. You can see NASA wants to talk about water vapor at [2]. Unfortunately, they still make the climate-leap-of-faith that CO2 causes the original warming, rather than the obvious fact that the increase of water vapor itself causes the warming. You can remove CO2 entirely from the equation, increased water vapor will create positive feedback. > I challenge you to find a single temperature reading, longitude, lattitude, altitude and timestamp, and tell me when it was manipulated. See [3]. If agencies are going revising past temperatures in new data sets, one can argue that's manipulation. Some will argue that this 'adjustment' is prudent and necessary. Others argue that it's not. There's an abundance of evidence on both sides of this particular issue. Now, you probably won't like the source of that information, and I'm sure it's all been 'debunked,' but the other side can say the exact same thing. 1: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ 2: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htm... 3: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-b...