Originally Posted by
Denziloe
As is clear from my other posts, I accept the scientific evidence for anthropic climate change.
But what you've just written isn't a valid argument for it.
It's a valid argument for the hypothesis that CO2 levels have risen to way above average as a result of industrialisation. But that's barely even a hypothesis, that's just a fact. It's patently clear from both the historical records, and the basic chemistry of burning fossil fuels. I think most climate change sceptics would happily concede to the truth of what you wrote.
But that's not what the anthropic climate change hypothesis is. The hypothesis is about the recent warming of the globe - namely that it's largely a result of the CO2 rise. This is what the sceptics tend to be sceptical about. There's good scientific evidence for it, but it's more complicated, and your post doesn't really provide any of the relevant evidence.
P.S. a relatively tangential niggle, but you got the data quite badly wrong. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400ppm, a significant difference from 650ppm.