Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on ""Climate Change is a Myth" -- A Nobel Prize Winner's Embarrassing Ideas" video.

Your understanding of the extremely complex and honestly chaotic natural system that is the planetary atmosphere is sort of static (vs dynamic). If the atmosphere was solely depended on a single variable and its minute variability overtime, it would lead (multiple times in the past) to all sorts of positive feedback loops, which are certainly absent in the history of the planet. Accept thus that your understanding of the system is, at best, inadequate. Nobody knows exactly what the equilibrium mechanisms, in play here, are. We don't even know what causes the ENSO cycles for crying out loud. Clauser is right to critisize this probabilistic nonsense.
3
Does this count for particle Physics experts such as her here?
1
@wizarddragon not even the IPCC says that humans have been a factor for the past 200 years. Everybody agrees that this is the case, at the most, after 1960s human emissions, not before. Yet CO2 and GATs have been ramping up since the end of the LIA in mid 19th century. This doesn't support the narrative of anthropogenic forcing that much. Read the climategate emails and take a glimpse at the inconsistency and pseudoscientific practices of the heroes of climate alarmism, first hand.
1
@harrybarrow6222 the rate of difference is something you cannot claim as your baseline is questionable at best. We have accurate satellite measurements only since the 1970s, anything before is questionable and statistics are used to fill in the gaps. When the error bars of those statistics exceed by 10x or so the actual proposed "anomaly" in GATs you are basically in the midst of night on a very foggy day - aka you have no visibility whatsoever.
1
@douglasdarling7606 not only that. We now have proxies that point to much higher GATs fluctuations in a matter of decades. Fluctuations of many C's per decade vs the 0.1C "anomaly" / decade today.
1