Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Which scientific papers are you referring to when you say "experts"?

am I wrong?

experts arent saying a warming increase is caused by an additional 120 ppm of co2 which is caused by man?

You're implying that the experts merely saw a correlation between two things and assign one to be the cause of the other, without rigorous study.

Yes thats what Im saying

in short I dont care how many years of data they have I dont think an increase of 120 ppm is causing the majority of global warming

320, serious question...

When you go to the doctor and the doctor prescribes a medicine, and then you pick up the medicine from the pharmacy, do you base your belief on how effective that medicine will be based on the size of the pill?

Because that would explain a lot.

typical strategy when losing an arguement personal attacks


https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

Do you think the preindustrial level of 280 ppm CO2 had an effect on our climate?

That isn't much either.

probably the question is how much

Global temps have been mostly consistent the past few thousand years, sometimes trending slightly up and sometimes slightly down, within half a degree (C), when suddenly, beginning around the same time as the industrial revolution, it starts to jump up like a bat out of hell 1.0-1.5 degrees in an extremely brief amount of time.
.
Now yes, that could be a coincidence, but it's unlikely to be such a coincidence. 
You could make the argument that the temp increase could be a normal rise, as the temp has ebbed and flowed up and down that much and more over millions of years.  And it has.  BUT NOT IN SUCH A SHORT TIME.
.
So a logical person (or dare-say an expert) can look at the sudden rise being in lockstep with humans beginning to heavily burn fossil fuels AND this radical increase occurring over 150 years instead of 15,000 years and conclude, prudently, that people have had something to do with it.
I don't get why this is so hard and some people want to resist what's right there in front of their faces.  When if was something more benign for them and didn't interfere with their tribe's ideology, they'd otherwise acknowledge the point.

Global temps have been mostly consistent the past few thousand years, sometimes trending slightly up and sometimes slightly down, within half a degree (C), when suddenly, beginning around the same time as the industrial revolution, it starts to jump up like a bat out of hell 1.0-1.5 degrees in an extremely brief amount of time.
.
Now yes, that could be a coincidence, but it's unlikely to be such a coincidence. 
You could make the argument that the temp increase could be a normal rise, as the temp has ebbed and flowed up and down that much and more over millions of years.  And it has.  BUT NOT IN SUCH A SHORT TIME.
.
So a logical person (or dare-say an expert) can look at the sudden rise being in lockstep with humans beginning to heavily burn fossil fuels AND this radical increase occurring over 150 years instead of 15,000 years and conclude, prudently, that people have had something to do with it.
I don't get why this is so hard and some people want to resist what's right there in front of their faces.  When if was something more benign for them and didn't interfere with their tribe's ideology, they'd otherwise acknowledge the point.

same logic as in the summer there is more violent crime and also in the summer ice cream sales are higher so it follows that ice cream causes violent crime

Im not questioning the fact that there is slight warming only that 120 ppm is the cause

Fro's post looks awfully plagiarized.

That's not his usual posting style at all.

type it into google, dickhead 

I won't bother waiting for an apology.