But…you're correlating previous climate changes (which had much slower rates) with "Even though this one measures daramatic'ly different, it's the same.".
As some others have asked you, would you be so kind as to please suggest other sources for either the required energy inputs, or the required reduction in heat losses, so as to provide other plausable explanations for the available data?
We agree that corelation is not causation. I suppose we should also agree that ignoring a correlation when choosing what to investigate would not be science.
I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.