Catastrophic Changes

Since there is only speculation and ZERO PROOF, abusing spock like that is a travesty.

Just because you capitalize it doesn't make it true. There are models that are skillful(look that up). The observations show the changes. Many previously unknown quantities have been identified and made the models more skillful. The ocean are rising. Average global temperatures are rising. The oceans are acidifying with CO2. Dismissing the science out of hand does not mean it is only speculation.

There are two fundamental schools of thought.
1. We are putting humanity's future in jeopardy and we should do everything we can to reduce carbon output and sequester as much CO2 as we can to restore some of the balance we observed in the 19th century.
2. There is little or nothing we can do to stop the effects of climate change and on the precipice of destruction mankind will innovate and generate new capabilities that allow us to adapt to the new paradigm or to better control the system we find ourselves in.

If you haven't noticed, I tend to side in the first school of thought.

Look Chicken Little, no one is denying the climate is changing, that's what it does, the only idiocy is thinking it is supposed to stay the same. Nor am I denying that the climate is warming since a Maunder Minimum known as the Little Ice Age, of course it is warming from one of the lowest temperature periods outside of an ice age. What I am denying is that there is ZERO PROOF man has had any impact on this process, and acting like he does without that proof is idiocy.

it is "extremely likely" that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[4] The best estimate is that observed warming since 1951 has been entirely human caused. -IPCC (paraphrased by Wikipedia)

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%. -https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

The world's leading climate scientists think human activities are almost certainly the main cause of the warming observed since the middle of the 20th century.
-https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en

There is almost certainty that man is the MAIN cause. There is no doubt that we are making a huge difference.

That is insane.
1st of all, science isn't a consensus game, it's a fact and proof game, none of which exist in regards to man's impact if any. ZERO PROOF. 2nd, like I said, even the IPCC knows there is ZERO PROOF, or they would say "caused" not "likely" 3rd, in any case, even if man were some insignificant contributer to normal climate change, only a person so vastly ignorant of the math involved in the quantities of energy of the atmosphere would idiotically say man is the main cause. That is pure idiocy. Santa Claus is more real than that.

Come on, give me sources. I have found no evidence the IPCC has been discredited or that NASA has made some huge mistake. I have found a reference to Info Wars which makes uneducated claims and references another guy in a piece that characterizes particles as solar radiation, so his conclusions are garbage.
-https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/global-warming-debunked-nasa-report.532174/
-https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo125.htm
Please stop repeating yourself, that doesn't make you correct. I read you the first time and I didn't forget. Don't need the name calling or insults either. I need sources that back up your claims. So far you haven't provided anything that panned out.

The only proof you're going to get is modeling. That is a tough pill to swallow because the most accurate measurements have happened over the last few decades and the ice ages were like 100,000 years and inter-glacial periods are something like 10,000 to 15,000 years. The information we've gleaned from ice cores and such can have a range of error however bounded it is.
1. The models we have are skillful, that means they have predicted 10 or 15 years ago what today looks like with a good degree of accuracy.
2. We know man is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.
3. We know CO2 is a GHG.
4. We wondered why CO2 wasn't rising as fast as we calculated it should, found it is in the ocean.
5. Historical records indicate that atmospheric CO2 lags the warming trend, but the amount of warming cannot be explained by the earths orbit around the sun. CO2 provides a feedback that pushes the trend. Vostok ice core.
6. The sun is cooling, has been for a while, yet temperatures are still rising.
7. CO2 has never been this high or risen this fast, and there has been so little time for temperature to react to CO2 as a GHG.
8. We have been working on the CO2 GHG theory for over 100 years "theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896"
9. Nearly every scientist that worked on GHG theory agreed increasing GHG would cause the global average temperature to rise. "What they don’t agree on is by how much."
10. Measured radiance from earth in the wavelengths of CO2, CH4, and O3 have decreased and downward radiance for CO2(and CH4, O3) has increased by the same amount. -> CO2 trapping heat.

There's still plenty we do not know.
1. When will Antarctica really start melting? The Arctic is predicted to be ice free in summer months before 2030.
2. Why are ice crystals forming on the underside of a glacier in the Antarctic?
3. What effect, if any, do brine flows at the bottom of the ocean have?
4. When will the oceanic "conveyor belt" stop, what will that do?
5. How much will climate warm by?
6. How fast will sea levels rise, and by how much?
7. How will our models improve as we move forward?

With the information we do have, it is logical to believe that CO2 will be the forcing mechanism that starts the warming trend.

Your stated hypothesis provides zero proof. Please provide links or information that supports your claim. As to the claim about using Spock, I disagree.

Even the thoroughly discredited IPCC never claims man caused it, instead they hedge with words like "it's likely" because they know there is ZERO PROOF.

Would you like a flashlight for that tunnel vision? Almost certainty that man is the main cause. There is no doubt that man is a major cause.

apparently that reading without comprehension describes YOU.

Nowhere do they say caused. Why?

ZERO PROOF

Besides they have been completely discredited by their various scandals, especially the East Anglican email scandal where they were caught saying they were going to have to change the results because they weren't coming out the way they wanted.

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]"
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Please link me to some of your sources. I have an open mind.

You still aren't getting it. Science isn't about consensus, The fact that none of the people changed their minds doesn't change the fact that the IPCC was thoroughly discredited by the email scandal. It just means that the chicken littles are dug in. what links are you looking for? I can't show you links to a negative, that being no proof. Show me something scientific showing proof.

When hucksters like this guy sell their cars (and jets), walk everywhere and cease to exhale I'll see that they are serious and pay attention.