So, who wants to splain this?

[RED]

https://www.sott.net/article/420049-...d-fossil-fuels

[togor]

What do you want explained? A contrarian view that does not examine its own flaws, which are deep and many.

The orbital variation hypothesis is proof of its own existence, nothing more. If you require assistance finding articles which debunk it, let me know.

[togor]

RED, an agency of the US government is here to answer your doubts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

[togor]

https://research.noaa.gov/article/Ar...with-carbon-14

This article describes the technique scientists have devised for estimating the amount of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere.

Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. It has a half-life of about 5700 years. So fossil fuels, buried deep, pretty much pure carbon-12. So analyzing the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, scientists see it's being diluted by a steady stream of fossil carbon-12.

And yes, the physics of how atmospheric carbon work are already well understood, how it acts as a IR absorber and keeps energy from radiating back out into space at night.

RED, have the feeling you're firm on NOT believing in a climate-crisis from excess atmospheric carbon, so now like some others you're just casting about for an iron-clad excuse for doing nothing about it, but without taking heat (pun intended) for it. My answer to that is that the problem is bigger than you can make or fix, so just do whatever the heck you are going to do, and don't bother anyone about it.

[dryheat]

Article is kind of interesting in a way. They have the smarts to write about pretty sophisticated stuff but throw out jokes about cow farts and and The Climate Change Hoax. They are a business, they write what sells. I didn't know it had a Russian/Polish name but I knew that our climate changes at a pretty dependable rate. Throw in the occasional volcano or a gazilion tons of CO2 and it might wiggle some.

[togor]

My doubts? I did not write the article. I did not say I believed what it said but I kinda thought it might irritate your sorry ass!

So NASA says NASA is full of crap!

Interesting. NASA is just another arm of a totally corrupt government, run by the same bunch of totally inept criminals that run the FBI, CIA, IRS, etc.

I had no doubts about that.

Hardly!

Your OG link quotes something out of an unknown context from 1982 and treats it like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Taking snippets here and there from scientific proceedings and trying to weave them into a narrative is an old game. But it's new research that moves the ball. Cherry picking contradictory bits to try to prove a point is a debate tactic, not actual science.

Anyhow your link has been 'splained as nothing of consequence to the actual subject of climate change.

Had you read the other links, they would tell you that the orbital variations, at this point in the cycle, point to a tiny drop in solar energy in the last 6,000 years. So your OG link couldn't even sync the theory to astronomical data correctly. In short, it's a turd. Polish it to your heart's content

[togor]

Worth a refresher course.

Like the man says, "science has to count the misses too, not just the hits".

[Johnny P]

My doubts? I did not write the article. I did not say I believed what it said but I kinda thought it might irritate your sorry ass!.

Genius Red. Took three posts to try and prove you wrong on something you didn't say.

[Allen]

Took three posts to try and prove you wrong on something you didn't say.

But he knows what everone is thinking long before anything is said.

[togor]

Genius Red. Took three posts to try and prove you wrong on something you didn't say.

It's called a discussion.

But he posted that stuff without mocking it so draw your own conclusions if he believes it or not.

Also:

"Man made climate change doesn't exist because you didn't convince ME" isn't a thing.

The existence or non-existence of a physical state does not depend on individual belief. This cuts both ways, for ghost-hunters and climate-change-deniers both.