>You never heard of supervolcanos? You never heard of naturally occurring forest fires?

You have one task - find me a graph of the last 150-200 years of CO2 concentration with significant peak caused by natural catastrophe. The only way you can prove to me that extreme natural disasters change global climate is to show me the graph that proves it. I say they don't and have shown you a graph which, if you were correct, would have shown CO2 concetration peak in 1980. The worst volcanic eruptions we know of cause several years of less sunlight at worse and left no lasting effect.

>There is NO correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature.

False - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-average-temperature-of-Planet-Earth-and-the-concentration-level-of-CO2-in-the-Earths_fig4_325914607

Here you go, correlation.

>What happened to the climate cultists screaming about "global cooling" and the upcoming man-made ice-age during the 1980s and 1990s? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to Al Gore's "temperature hockey stick"? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to the prediction in 2009 by Al Gore and many other climate clowns that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2014? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Where are papers that said that? I don't care what some randos said at some point. You seem to not understand the difference between scientific community and the activist community. Most scientists aren't activists. Activists may or may not overexagerate what scientists said.

"I've disproven by observation what some activist said which means the climate change doesn't exist" - no, bro, that's not how this works.

Also past performance does not predict future performance. You cannot say that even if someone was 100% wrong in the past that it means he'll be 100% wrong in the future.

>Do you know why so many academic studies agree with the cult of climate change? Because if the people applying for climate research grants disagree with the status quo, they don't get funding.

Which isn't true because that's not how scientific studies work. You don't do studies like "Proving that climate change doesn't exist". You do stuff like "Study of existance of the climate change". There is no results before the study. You can easily frame it however you like and then publish whatever comes out. There is no questionare about your views on your research topic. You just need to show there is a reason to reasearch something. It's against scientific methods to approach a problem with bias about the conclusion. Anything goes as long as you follow scientific protocol and don't make up shit. It's that easy. If some dumbass goes around saying that he doesn't get funding because they don't like his research he's lying and probably has a case of scientific misconduct against him.