A few facts for the day CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere used to be around 6000 PPM. (parts...

Links? Source?? OF COURSE NOT!!!

but I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how miniscule increases in an atmospheric trace gas such as CO2, causes the earth to warm.

It's because CO2 & methane are transparent to visible light but more opaque to infrared. The solar energy comes pouring in via the visible spectrum, but the heat can't leave so easily via the infrared spectrum due to that opacity. Kids' version:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-co2-and-other-greenhouse-gases

idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html

In order to actually prove human carbon emissions influence climate, all variables would have to remain constant

Nope. With multiple data points we can solve for multiple variables simultaneously. Detailed climate models account for all the variables you list and more. They are verified and calibrated based on 700,000 years of prior climate data.

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html

Global warming models are based on small amounts of data. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we are expected to believe they can draw conclusions based on a hockey stick graph with 50 years of data?

Nope, not 50 years, 700,000 years, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from sea floor sediments.
https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores

Here's where the various data sets were collected:

The most salient thing about the 700,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.

Where does the money for climate research come from?

Fair question. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 billion per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe none of that money goes to propaganda, are you?

At best scientist can make correlations.

So you're saying that when science predicts an eclipse ten years in advance accurate to the second, that's only a correlation? C'mon dude, science makes predictions all the time.

BlueVeins · 22-25

Note the differing & non-linear scales. Couldn't find a graph that goes farther back (and levels were higher during the Cambrian period), but the evidence is pretty clear. Even if 2,000 was bad & 6,000 was a-okay somehow, it'd still be a bad idea to let it get to that point because CO2 poisoning starts setting in at ~5,000 ppm. Granted, it'd be very mild poisoning but you definitely still don't want that 24/7.

TexChik · F

Hey ! Libs don’t want facts , just pay them ! 😂

Barefooter25 · 46-50, M

The liberal interpretation to your post is that our SUVs and capitalism itself is destroying Jupiter and the other surrounding planets!!! 😮😧

Yetti · 51-55, M

There, there now! 😏🤗 If it makes you feel better, you and all the true believers can volunteer to pay each and everyone in the skeptical camp's carbon taxes.

SW-User

*Parrot voice - But 97 percent of scientists say..........

Shut up! The majority is always wrong, historically proven.

Changeisgonnacome · 61-69, F

I know. It's a wonderful planet, we needed to kill it, of course, or communists were going to take over with their long hair on men and a three day work week.
On YouTube the Jacobin channel features Jen Pan-. She's a genius and the genius type she interviewed said I don't know about the carbon cycle because I'm working poor.
It's okay-. I'd rather we don't have to share a planet, after all.

Yetti · 51-55, M

Thanks for posting this