With all due respect, you ought to read the link you posted. At least the first two words of the headline. If you can‘t or won’t, here’s a shorter explanation. Still no go? Here it is in Bazooka Joe comic form.
I see. So your plan all along has been to cite source after source after source that directly and specifically contradicts you. Sources that, as with your more dubious and crackpot sources, you know better than to read yourself. Have to admit, that’s a diabolical plan. Never saw that coming.
However, it may not be working out for you as well as you think. For instance, you claim that this quote from your own source says that “carbon foot print is a lie“:
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming. [Emphasis mine.]
Can you spot the contradiction? What do you make of it?
“New one?” The article‘s from the Bush era. You really ought to try reading it.
[This comment was removed]