Climate change / pollution and answers

So the evidence is we do not know what else it could be. Your biggest uncertainty is the Oceans whereby it is not the current temperature that is problematic in measuring it is how to correct the historic record which is rife with bias, human frailty and potential inaccuracies not least in the methods of reading and the thermometers used. Consider taking a reading from a bucket dumped overboard and then hauled in. Say the standard was put the thermometer in the bucket and take the reading after thirty seconds, with evaporative cooling at work all the time a sailor out in the sunshine enjoying the weather 30 seconds becomes a minute and a cooler temperature  is read, the type of bucket is frequently unknown whether it is wooden or canvas and later rubber the height of the ships deck makes a difference, wind speed, ships tacking on one compass setting, buckets kept on deck  may have a warming or cooling effect, the time of day, cloud cover all affect the historic reading to unknown degrees. After teh 1930s ships intakes had a warming effect on the readings and the speed was also important. Ships Captain's were paid to keep a record and having worked in an environment where temperature readings of numerous processes were supposed to be kept as a QA procedure it is quite often that falsification occurs where thermometers were broken or bucket ropes parted or the Captain could not be bothered and produced a best guess. On such things are we relying.

All of these factors have been researched and factors applied to correct the historic Ocean temperatures but they are what they are a best guess and a largely unknown quantity. The US transcribed teh Japanese readings after WW2 and to save space dropped the decimal making the Japanese records 0.35C colder. The logging of all the Ocean temp records is incomplete by some 6 million pages in the UK records alone that have not been digitised.

Would you mortgage your house on such records?

So how much energy has been delivered by the repurposing of 70% of the Earth's land surface to provide food, houses and infrastructure for humans. We know that virtually all of the changes we've made cause warming. Urban Heat Islands cause very significant warming for example (5C or more). And how much cooling has CO2 caused by photosynthesis and transpiration. And how much warming does water vapour cause - which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and exists in vastly greater quantities in the atmosphere?

You see, zany, none of these have been calculated because it's far too complex. Yet they're all significant factors in global temperature. The only one that's been calculated is the CO2 greenhouse effect because it's the only one we can calculate. But there are a vast number of factors that affect global temperature.

In science, zany, what the scientists do when they have a situation like this (with many unknown factors) is attempt to eliminate the unknowns - i.e. create an environment where the only variable that is changing is the one whose effect you need to evaluate. So they have set up experiments (on Earth) where the only factor changing is CO2 concentration and measured the temperature change. And guess what? Changing CO2 concentration has no effect (except in deserts). (And don't ask for links again because I've given you them). And another discouraging bit of evidence for your CO2 theory is that the models that have been built using the hypothesis of CO2 warming have consistently failed to work. They've gradually lowered the coefficient for CO2 but they still don't work. 

Most would regard the CO2 theory as "wrong" at this point, but for some reason they still carry on claiming CO2 is the cause of warming - and stupid people keep on believing them. It's just proof that if you keep on telling people something many people will believe it, even without evidence. 

PS. I would never have expected small changes in CO2 to have significant changes in temperature. If the Earth weren't buffered to absorb such small variations then it probably would have burned up or frozen. Remember in the history of the Earth the current levels of CO2 not very high (420ppm) - they have been nearly 10,000 ppm in the past yet the Earth survived. The plants just grew very fast 

With the alleged amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of rain we get, we should be able to grow our own rainforest. 

You are not paying attention, realistically we do not know what the temperature of the oceans was before satellite information some  40 years ago. We are comparing the temperature of the ocean now using modern technology with the temperature of the ocean as measured some 100 years and more ago. The methods used then are at best suspect and are not only incomplete but alive with correction factors to allow for biases within the measurements and some measurements dubious at best. Even the scientists going into these measurements in detail disagree with what they arrive at with the oceans contributing to planetary warming giving a range of 1.34 and 1.54 for the planet temperature. This discrepancy is due mainly to all the variables I referred to above. You keep asking about the heat I keep referring to how the heat is subject to many inaccuracies and fiddle factors in its measurement and application and what it all means is subject to interpretation. 
As with the death valley 1913 record temperature and the disappearance of the medieval warming period in the hockey stick graph the temperatures from which they derive their 'fact' that the planet is warming almost uncontrollably is subject to sudden deletion if they do not fit the narrative and dismissed as a blip. Statistically many's a blip has been ignored and found eventually to be of some significance. 
As I said would you mortgage your house on sailors taking temperatures with canvas/wooden/rubber buckets 100 years ago as they bounced around on deck getting soaked even in their Drizabones. 

Zany, you still haven't understood the idea of a buffer or stabiliser. Jeez. Basically the effects of CO2 are stabilised in the earth's system because the introduction of more CO2 causes plants to grow faster (which is very well documented as I've explained several times before). When plants grow they not only remove CO2 from the air but they also capture the Sun's radiative energy and store it in higher organic compounds (nature's own solar cells). This causes the temperature to go up less than it would have done without the presence of plants. As I said you seem to have a very bad memory.

But you're dodging the questions I asked. Give me just one example of empirical evidence of CO2 causing warming in the Earth's system. I can't think of any.

The elements of the composition is merely resembling a state, which goes through a process of changes, and since it's all symbiotic it's how do they relate that matters.  Increases is the result of causality.