That webcomic cites no sources and is not believable.
Samseau
1

That webcomic cites no sources and is not believable.

You haven’t read it. Look again, it sites sources. Look between 16000 BC and 15000. ‘not being believable’ is not a valid criticism without any backup.

Also, the Nobel Prizes are corrupt, look at how they gave a peace prize to Obama who has caused more wars than Bush.

Irrelevant for science Nobel Prizes.

We don’t know how much of the warming is natural and how much is man-made. Clearly Earth has been coming out of an ice-age for thousands of years now.
We don’t know if it’s CO2 that is the cause of human warming, or some other identified cause, such as the depletion of the Ozone layer, or some other unidentified cause that scientists have overlooked. The climate is extremely complex and there is no way to test for all variables.

These 2 talking points have been repeatedly debunked. You can still repeat them, but it doesn’t make them true.

The political solutions proposed, involving cap and trade, would not be enforceable world-wide, and therefore have zero effects. Green technology currently produces energy less efficiently than carbon energy and actually causes more pollution, so it’s not a viable alternative for civilization.

Very weak from the same person saying that science isn’t religion. The fact that you don’t like the proposed solutions has no effect on how true something is. Is does, of course, means you will find any flimsy excuse to rationalise your ‘disbelief’ in climate science.

Any of these points are easily researched if you’re not brainwashed.

I’m assuming ‘if you’re not brainwashed’ is code for ‘you can only believe conspiracy theory sites and science hacks’ because all real research points to you being wrong. BTW, you are the one trying to disprove the current consensus. You haven’t posted a single scientific thing to back it up. Nothing.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.