Global Warming Exists (2)

You clearly have not established any of your assertions and here is why. Your entire argument is to show a "cumulative" graph of CO2 emissions that show an alarming increase but consider the cumulative effect of such a graph? If I were to produce 1 ton of CO2 per day and you were to graph that over time then it would be a flat line at the X axis of 1. However if we make a "cumulative graph then the graph line would slope up from 1 to 365 but what does that mean? By itself nothing as you have not established a "correlation" between your cumulative graph and the resulting build up of CO2. If you follow the link I posted above you will see this line does not look like the one you post but this does not mean they are not correlated. Rather what is needed is a statistical coefficient of correlation along with an analysis of the possible and probable associations between like elements from two sources. So you really have established nothing at all. There are a myriad of explanations between estimated CO2 emissions you chart and the PPM as measured by NASA which is about 400 PPM and has held steady there for about 2 years now. Without the coefficient of correlation established and elimination of alternative explanations your so called proof is anything but. Again, I am back to the difficult task of attempting to prove a negative as I contend such correlation does not exist in a numerical value insuring a correlation between Human Emissions and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. You cannot produce it. Your argument for the global warming is likewise not a logical proof as is immediately absent in your argument is the possible offsetting aspects of the thermo dynamic analysis you post in a completely biased manner. You delve into graphs and charts when you clearly do not have the scientific training or understanding of the aspects of how these things you mention interact with each other. Models of climate change take 100s of thousands of man hours to develop and must be run on super computers yet here you are summarizing the entirety of all that in a few paragraphs then declaring it a proof. By that assumption there is no need to learn more and there is no need to debate this issue further as all we need do is get the proof from you. I admire your attempt to delve into such things but I think you should get to school and pay particular attention to your geometry studies as you are clearly unfamiliar with the constituents of a proof. You then conclude based on two fallacies which of course is a fallacy. What is the coefficient of correlation and how does it compare to the coefficient of correlation with Sun spot cycles which I would think you would agree is the other significant "forcing" on global temperatures and climate change? I do not offer them here as you will simply ignore them or discount them by a mere read as you have already concluded on these things not based on your research but rather on the research of others so rather than graphs produced by others along with their related hypothesis without any reference to authoritative credentials you might just as well do as most Chicken Little's do and commit the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority by quoting the rumor that 97% of scientists agree on something although we have no specifics. You offer nothing here but ambiguous and incorrect inference based on unsubstantiated data to reach a conclusion you have already made. You rely on the arguments of others and none of your own so next time you feel compelled to recite someone else's argument how about you just give me their email and I will debate them? I reassert there is no basis for the correlation between human activity and observed CO2 increases in PPM in earth's atmosphere...NONE!!