The claim of human-caused climate change is based on the hypothesis that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are the dominant driver of climatic variability; Carbon dioxide is considered to be crucial; it is said to be the “adjustment knob” for the climate on earth (actually the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, since, unlike carbon dioxide, this only remains in the atmosphere for a short time before being released again If precipitation fails, a role for it as a trigger for climate change is ruled out). It is concluded that human emissions of carbon dioxide, which increase its concentration in the atmosphere, have a decisive influence on the climate
How can this hypothesis be checked for correctness? In principle, there are two approaches: On the one hand, you can examine, starting from the supposed causes, whether the physical mechanism is in principle capable of producing the claimed effects. Conversely, the observed climate can be used to empirically check whether changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases actually lead to corresponding climate changes.
NOTE: Observations by Russ Babcock, Canadian biochemist: This article shows how historical evidence largely conflicts with the AGW alarmists' connection of CO2 to Earth's temperatures. Even after considering that much of the evidence presented is derived from proxy data, which certainly makes it imprecise at best, I do believe it at least indicates data trends. Those trends certainly do not align with the notion that CO2 is a major cause of so-called man-made global warming or climate change. If anything, the indicated trends show that the AGW's cause and effect appears to be 180 degrees backwards. And, dare I say, the blasphemous observation that temperature leads CO2 levels does align far better with the scientific fact that oceans will off-gas more and more CO2 as they get warmer, and they absorb more and more CO2 as they get cooler.
