How do we respond to this?

this

> the discovery that Wegener was right didn't put an end to seafloor mapping
Seafloor mapping wasn't reliant on doomsday predictions and political favoritism like the AGW cult is. No doomsday = no reason for 90% of climate scientists.

You're missing the point. In the past we've had literally 10 times the concentration of CO2 that we have now, and all the apocalyptic predictions of an ice free arctic and such that AGW evangelists have been talking about didn't happen. It doesn't matter if CO2 is 400ppm or 4000ppm because CO2 does not drive temperature.

> where we are on the curve makes the relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature nearly linear.
Where we are on the curve also means that increasing CO2 basically does nothing to the temperature.

An increase of 300 ppm to 400 ppm isnt doubling, it isnt nearly linear growth and never had been. An increase in atmospheric CO2 by 200 ppm would account for a whopping 0.2C increase in temperature.
You offer false analogies. The significance of the government finding out that climate change isnt anthropogenic is akin to a totally hypothetical scenario where electromagneticists assert that objects fall towards earth because because the electrons surrounding atoms desire to be grounded, and government funding was pouring in to research this property of atoms and its applications. As significant evidence emerges that the curvature of spacetime leads to gravity and that particles of different charge are equally attracted to the earth, do the elecromaneticists cede their entire field of study for the past decade, all federal funding of the phenomena, and public opinion of future research into electromagnetism? No, that would be devistating from their standpoint, instead they lots of convincing looking correlations between atoms with electrons and their attraction to the earth, and continue to push ideas of further extrapolation of their "findings" and claim consensus to get the public and government excited about the future of electromagnetism and to push criticisms under the rug because arguements from authority are apparently dogmatic to some people.
All you can conclude from the data that reads "CO2 levels correlate both positivly and negatively to temperature increase at different points in time" is something other than CO2 is very likely causing temperature change.
Provide me empirically sound evidence that CO2 does not cause logorithmic radiative forcing and actually provides multiplicative forcing as described by IPCC, or cede your arguement that climate change is anthropogenic and climate scientists arent hacks, and move on.
When CO2 was at 4,400 ppm, how could life exist in equatorial regions where summer temperatures would exceed 80C?

>CO2 at 4,400 ppm .. summer temperatures would exceed 80C
4400 ppm was during the late Ordovician ice age, 450 My ago.
Does CO2 sometimes cause ice ages?

How exactly are you different from a creationist saying without evolution there would be no biologists, because the Illuminati or whatever wants everyone to be atheists?

Climatologists study the climate and AGW is a theory which explains the current climate. If AGW was false then we would still need to understand the climate and we would still need all our climatologists. Your attempts to discredit scientists with nothing but puerile insults and baseless conspiracy conjecture is pathetic. Stop lying.

>You're missing the point. In the past we've had literally 10 times the concentration of CO2 that we have now, and all the apocalyptic predictions of an ice free arctic and such that AGW evangelists have been talking about didn't happen.
That's wrong for several reasons. Glaciation only occurred when the temperature dropped from a massive increase in carbon sinks and decrease in solar activity.

>It doesn't matter if CO2 is 400ppm or 4000ppm because CO2 does not drive temperature.
CO2 does drive temperature, this is apparent throughout the paleoclimate record, from basic physics, and direct observation. it's not the only factor that does so, but it's the main factor in the current warming. Stop making shit up.

>Where we are on the curve also means that increasing CO2 basically does nothing to the temperature.
It's one of the fastest, if not the fastest, warming trends we've ever seen. Saying that the rate is logarithmic doesn't tell us anything about it's actual magnitude or effect. Your argument is a delusional red herring.

>An increase of 300 ppm to 400 ppm isnt doubling, it isnt nearly linear growth and never had been.
What does being doubled have to do with whether the rate is near linear? You realize that describing the effect through doubling is merely a useful way of describing the curve, right?

>90% of climate scientists would be out of jobs
They are already running out of work because the science is settled. In fact the more they are forced to study it the more obvious it will be that predicting local weather 8 days out is hard, let alone global climate 8 years out. Then there is the matter of all those carbon taxes and all those innocent children growing up thinking CO2 is a toxic chemical.

The climate conspiracy theorists need to be stopped
Kys op

>An increase in atmospheric CO2 by 200 ppm would account for a whopping 0.2C increase in temperature.
Where did you get this number?

>The significance of the government finding out that climate change isnt anthropogenic is akin to a totally hypothetical scenario
This is hilarious considering the American government is now run by people who publicly claim climate change isn't anthropogenic. So on the one hand you're telling me scientists just say whatever they need to say to get funding and on the other you're saying they will never give up a disproved theory. Your conspiracy theories contradict each other.

>All you can conclude from the data that reads "CO2 levels correlate both positivly and negatively to temperature increase at different points in time" is something other than CO2 is very likely causing temperature change.
This completely ignores that the effect of CO2 is not determined from mere correlation but by direct measurement and causation through basic physics. The fact that CO2 causes warming and warming increases CO2, while other factors effect both, explains the correlations observed throughout the record. You are trying to argue as if it's the other way around while ignoring everything but the effect of CO2 on warming. You fundamentally don't understand what you're arguing about, and you're making a fool of yourself.

>Provide me empirically sound evidence that CO2 does not cause logorithmic radiative forcing and actually provides multiplicative forcing as described by IPCC
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2568.html

>When CO2 was at 4,400 ppm, how could life exist in equatorial regions where summer temperatures would exceed 80C?
Because life back then was adapted to an extreme greenhouse environment. Or do you deny evolution as well? Unfortunately the rapid glaciation and sea level decrease that occurred at the end of the Ordovician–Silurian period caused the second greatest mass extinction on Earth.

>penguins in the same picture as polar bears.

If you are going to shill 'global warming' at least use a more realistic picture OP.