Independent drinker

Intellectually dishonest. From the movement that asserts that we are not responsible for the fact that CO2 is the highest it has been in 5 million years.

This is a meme cite. I posted a meme. If you want a list of scientific papers relevant to AGW, I will happily provide them. Start with this one: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf

Paleoclimate measuremnts can be difficult and uncertain. But yes, we can determine CO2 going back millions of years. For example, we can look at the Permian-Triassic transition ~252 MY BP. We know that a CO2 excursion began 251.999 +/- 0.039 MY BP due to the flood basalt event which left a large igneous province in Siberia known as the Siberan Traps. Based on the size of the LIP, it is estimated 44 Gt of CO2 was released in about 50K years. Global average temperature rose about 6°C. The carbon isotope ratio changed dramatically at 251.941 +/- 0.037 MY BP. Simultaneously, a mass extinction began that wiped out 90% of all marine species and 75% of all terrestrial species within 10 - 100K years. It took about 10 Million years for life to recover.

I am not leaping to conclusions from ugly pictures. I am posting ugly picture to illustrate what science tells us is true. Seven years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science sent me a free issue of Science to entice me to join (it worked). That issue contained this paper. Let me know if you find any religion in it. https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf

This is what science looks like. It took me hours of study to understand about half of it. After the last seven years of reading climate science papers, I understand most of it. How much of it can you understand.

Try this one: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
It was billed as the first direct proof of AGW. Published in Nature, a top science journal. How did climate scientists react? "Interesting, but it just confirms what we already knew."

So there is your proof of CO2 induced global warming. Read the first paragraph. I doubt that you will even understand it. But if you do, then please confine your further comments to technical arguments of why the paper is wrong. Otherwise, I have proven AGW as you insisted.

Here is a hint on the paper. It basically reproduces the Keeling curve just by measuring IR (heat) from the sky. Heat tracks CO2 levels. QED

Why do you think our certainty regarding the radiative forcing effects of CO2 is AT ALL dependent on measuring the level of CO2 200 million years ago? Sure, everything we know about the Earth back then is consistent with the theory. But it isn't in the top 100 pieces of evidence I would give to support AGW.

The reference I gave you was a repeatable experiment run during this century using state of the art instruments. They measured IR heat radiating from the sky IN THE CO2 BAND. The level of that heat rose and fell with the natural seasonal variation discovered by Keeling in the late 1950s. Independent of the natural cycle, the heat showed a decade-long trend of increasing with rising CO2 from FF combustion. Increasing heat from the sky with CO2's fingerprints all over it. Case closed.

You want poof? That is as close as it gets in the physical sciences.
No religion in this paper, just science you don't begin too understand.

0.2 Watts/meter/decade is not religion. It is physics.