You are creating an impossible burden of proof (causation, which in the Pearlian sense can maybe only be established when observing interventional data, which w

You are creating an impossible burden of proof (causation, which in the Pearlian sense can maybe only be established when observing interventional data, which we can't have) while ignoring the balance of probabilities and possible harm done. This comic illustrates the scale of previous deviations, including the ice age one you keep harping on about https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ If you drink a bunch of methanol and then go blind without knowing the exact biochemistry, you don't say "eh, there's no causation proven yet" and keep drinking, you stop the things which correlate until you can show they are safe. Where's your credibility? What have you done to give an alternative explanation to anthropogenic climate change? If you don't have one, you aren't acting in good faith here