Global warming is mostly anthropogenic

The global warming time scalePro seems to me to be giving the false impression that the time scale of global warming does not matter. Global warming from 1978 to 2000 was at the rate of 0.20 C per decade. From 1870 it is about 0.8 / 14 = 0.06 C per decade, on average. If the 1978 trend is correct, we may have a climate crisis from anthropogenic global warming. If the 0.06 degree number is correct, then there is no crisis. In the first case a theory of positive feedback of CO2 is required to say that CO2 effects are multiplied by around three. If he 0.06 degree number is correct, then we know can try to figure out how much was due to natural warming after the coldest temperatures in 3000 years and how much was due to CO2. Perhaps negative feedback cuts the CO2 effect in half and other factors account for the warming. We do not know, and therefore Pro's case is unproved.Cause and EffectPro did not establish cause and effect between observed global warming and CO2. For a decade, climate has been running below the 5% probability of error claimed for CO2 climate models. The explanation given for the large departure is that there are natural variations like La Nina that models do not account for and cannot predict. That's certainly true; models to not include such variations. The problem is that conceding large unknowns means the warming from 1978 to 2000 may also be a product of those large unknowns. The alleged "lower bound based on observation" of CO2 effects cannot be trusted because observations always include all of the many long term and short term influences. If very high quality climate predictions are achieved, we would have confidence that everything has been correctly accounted for. That is not the case because the model predictions are truly awful.Pro implies that the prediction errors in a decade are just short term blips that can be ignored as statistical, whereas the long term is well understood and predictable. Pro says, "the temperature record contains large amounts of natural variability on time scales less than a couple decades." The implication is clearly contradicted by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that I cited, and which operates with a roughly 60 year cycle. 30 years of warming are followed by 30 years of cooling. There was a cooling trend ending in the 70s, followed by warming until about 2000, and now it seems we are starting a cooling cycle. Pro never claimed that this cycle does not exist or that it is in the models. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation exists, is long term, and is not modelled. Pro claims that another reason for the models to err was that methane contributions inexplicably slowed substantially. Pro says, "In actuality, the growth of methane concentrations slowed greatly in the first decade of the twenty-first century." So why did they slow? (Some may recall that we were supposed to have been doomed by the methane from ever-increasing cow flatulence.) I cited evidence that methane may act as a natural negative feedback mechanism than moderates other warming effects, including CO2. Pro's new contention supports that theory. Climate sensitivity to CO2 can be much less than the minimum supposed by Pro.Climate is complexThe amount of warming or cooling observed over some period is the sum of:CO2 warming + PDO warming or cooling + Methane-change induced warming or cooling + Water-vapor-change induced warming or cooling+ Earth orbit variation induced warming or cooling+ Atmospheric sulphate induced cooling (mainly volcanoes)+ Solar variation induced warming or cooling+ Cloud-change induced warming or cooling+ Other unknown factors that induce warming or cooling.The methane and water vapor factors may depend upon the warming from other sources, so they do not exist if all other things are equal. Clouds depend upon water vapor, temperature, and other factors. The net warming depends upon all these condition summed at the start of the period and again summed at the end.Now, consider that there was slight cooling from 2000 to the present. How much of that is due to CO2? Consider that there was about 0.5 degree warming from 1978 to 2000? How much was due to CO2? How about the 0.8 degree from from 1870 to the present; how much of that was due to CO2? In each case the question "How much is due to CO2?" only makes sense if the factors other than CO2 are known. That is what is claimed by CO2-crisis-advocates for the warming from 1978 to 2000. They say they looked and found nothing else that could account for the warming other than CO2 amplified by water vapor. Among the significant factors they overlooked is the long-term Pacific Decadal Oscillation. If the present cooling is +0.02 from CO2 + 0.01 from water vapor - 0.01 due to methane - 0.025 due to PDO = -0.005, then how is the percentage due to CO2 even defined. I'm not claiming those numbers are accurate, I'm just illustrating the problem of proving the claim that 75% is anthropogenic CO2.In considering 1870 to the present, they say that all the other factors are short term variations that can be ignored over the long term. However, that isn't true. Where one is in a 60 year cycle at the start and end of the selected period will be significant. Also, longer term cycles are much more difficult to identify, like what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.The claim that 75% of global warming is due to CO2 is unproven. It cannot possibly be proved until models are complete and proven reliable, and that has not happened.The Survey of alleged exertsSome committee that investigated Climategate said they found no evidence of successful attempts to block publications by skeptics, even though the desire to block them was clearly expressed. We can be equally confident that a committee appointed by the medieval Church would find no wrongdoing in blocking the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system. However, I cited substantial evidence that skeptical publications are blocked, and Pro offered no rebuttal to that.I also claimed that whole notion that science is determined by a vote of experts is an unsound one, and Pro did not rebut that.Some debate issues:1. I did not agree to waive the limit of 8000 characters by including supplementary material in comments. Pro's doing so is a conduct violation, albeit a mall one I can likely survive. However, the extra material should not be considered as part of the debate. That makes Pro without references for her R4 claims.2. There is nothing wrong with using a blog post or a Wikipedia article as a reference, if the cited article references through to published material. Pro did not claim the data cited was incorrect, only that the person citing it did not meet her requirements. Moreover, in modern climate science, journal articles are as likely to be bogus as anything else. Mann's Hockey Stick is the classic example, but I cited both the reasons and other examples.At the high level we are debating, summary statements by reputable climate scientists are usually more valuable than individual research papers. A paper typically has a long list of assumptions and caveats that are ignored in citing the conclusion, In fact, if doesn't have a long list of assumptions and caveats, it isn't good science. The paper's conclusions may have been overturned by later papers, but only an active climate scientist would know what has been sustained and what has been overturned. For example, Mann's hockey stick paper, complete with bogus conclusion that climate did not change for a thousand years before the 1970s, is still available for citation. It was reviewed by his fellow like-thinking climate scientists, while the errors where in the statistical methods.