Look at the damned data I showed. If you don't do that, don't even pretend you understand science. And don't even pretend that anyone has ever said there isn't natural fluctuation.

Let me say it again. The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is unprecedented PERIOD. There has never been a point in the last 5 million years when it has been this high. Temperature is also high. The rate of change of BOTH is unprecedented and their rate of change match. Anyone with even the slightest common sense will realize that something unusual is happening. The question then is WHY is it unusual. The current warming started really being noticeable in the early 20th century, though even in the late 19th century a few meterologists who were compiling long term records noticed changes. The rate of change during this period was rapid, but not definitively unprecedented. The first clear articulation of anthropogenic global warming was from the 1950's where the similarity in the rate of increase of CO2 and temperature was clear. This was when the science of global warming really started...around the time DNA was first being studied in earnest. The science is not new.

There is a clear inflection point in both the CO2 and the temperature curves around the 1970's. After that inflection point we are in an unprecedented rate of change for both. Don't know why you pick 1988 because the curve continues to have that abnormal rate of change to this year. No other source of CO2 can account for this. And, as the graphs I show you which you clearly didn't look at indicate, no natural causes can fully account for the temperature increase. Only when anthropogenic factors are included can the change be accounted for.

As to using meterological events as evidence for global warming, NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has EVER used a single meterological event in that way. Deniers do that every time there is single day it is unusually chilly. Scientists know full well that individual meterological events are single data points and it is only the overall pattern that is significant. So please don't lie. You know scientists don't do this. Or you damned well should.

Let me be clear. If you continue to ignore the data presented here and in what I cite, don't bother commenting. I get sick and tired of the either ignorance or actual dishonestly that deniers display. The data are pretty damned clear and have become more and more solid each and every year. Not one single peer-reviewed paper has ever been published in any jounral that presents even one datum that contradicts AGW. By contrast hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been published supporting AGW. Yet you, in all your "wisdom" (and apparent ignorance of the data) seem to know better. That sounds borderline delusional on your part.