Well, this was certainly predictable by Democrats! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It is YOU trying to present arguments and 'proof' from obscure weathermen! It is YOU that denies science AND mathematics! It is YOU that somehow believes fossils actually burn and we use them for fuel!! It is YOU that tries to invoke God in order to curse Him.
Now for the science you discard:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over distance). In other words, no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot make energy out of nothing!
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a system) and 't' is time. In other words, no gas or vapor has the capability to reduce entropy...ever. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant denoting the efficiency of a surface to radiate light, and 't' is temperature in Deg K. In other words, you cannot trap light. You cannot stop thermal energy from being converted into electromagnetic energy (light). The higher the temperature, the MORE LIGHT radiated, NOT LESS.
You deny and discard these three theories of science. They do not discuss fossils and have nothing to do with fossils.
Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot change. A desert climate is always a desert climate. A marine climate is always a marine climate. Climate has no temperature, humidity, wind direction of speed, pressure, area, location, etc. It cannot change.
You deny mathematics too. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth nor the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. The reason is the requirements for performing a statistical summary that you just discard because they are in your way.
One of the first requirements is that raw, unbiased data MUST be made available. It isn't. One of the most important characteristics of ANY statistical summary is that they do not predict anything. This is due to the use of random numbers in the summary process, both to calculate the averages and again to calculate the margin of error value.
This isn't made up shit, dude. YOU and the entire Church of Global Warming simply deny these theories of science and statistical mathematics.
'Climate change' is a meaningless buzzword. So is 'global warming'. No starting or ending point is ever specified for a delta value. No unbiased raw has ever been made available. YOU CANNOT PREDICT WITH STATISTICAL MATH!
And another falls right in line
As far as Science, I’ll go with those who put a man on the moon, and the ninety percent of other climate scientists rather than something copied and pasted off of another bloggers website
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/