From one of your SkepticalScience links..."Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn't as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount."

Repeat..."natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming" ie CO2 and methane were NOT the dominant forcings pre 1940.

Surely you can now understand that your silly claim that " "CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet" is simply wrong. Why can't you just admit it and move on?

Which is all I've been saying all along and what you've been trying to avoid admitting all along.

(I'm only using this ink because you used it. In the main I consider using SkepticalScience on climate change the same as using the Vatican on christianity. They aren't unbiased observers but the most partisan of all sites, with the possible exception of RealClimate.)

(There you go, you can try to change the subject from your "dominant forcings" error, to arguing in favour of your goto site.)

Re your misplaced faith in the climate models:....
http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

"CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet"

Oh my goodness! From the context of my original post, you can see that I was talking about the consensus understanding of CO2 and methane being the dominant forcings NOW! As in, we're doing it, obvious from around the start of the 20th Century but really kicking in from the 1950's. Seriously, the CONTEXT of my post should have been obvious given I just congratulated you for not giving into another Denialist theory about climate NOW... the sunspots! EG:
__________

>>"I don't think the sunspot theory is the only answer to changes in the climate"
Good!

>>"I don't think there is an 'only answer'"
Then you're with the majority of climate scientists that measure many different forcings. But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295062

BUT THEN you go and rely on a proverbial invisible 'Black Swan' for why you don't accept climate change today.
>>"I think its a combination of many factors that are beyond our current scientific knowledge"
That's where you have a problem. Feelings and suspicions are not a contrary dataset or even coherent argument.

Been net surfing could have posted so very much to back up my position
And yes some truly laughable stuff rebutting my view [like a laugh]
But no set out a case for me, why is there an anti climate change force
Who runs it, why, who gains if it wins this battle
Tell me why deniers will not believe NATO? the UN? who? ICE MELTING RECORDS SET EVERY YEAR
Why has someone conned me
Or we could [as a fellow ham radio man has, look at the past history of temperatures rainfall and weather over the last 50 years
His grand dad then dad wrote daily in the dairy farms rainfall and weather book, it makes my case

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-sign-of-slowdown-atmospheric-greenhouse-gas-levels-hit-new-high-20191125-p53e15.html
I offer the link so those who denie the science have something new to tell us is put together by fraudsters
In the end that truth can not be avoided if the science is wrong [and it is not] massive fraud is taking place

Max,

"From the context of my original post, you can see that I was talking about the consensus understanding of CO2 and methane being the dominant forcings NOW!"

You spend days arguing that the pre-1940 period fits your hypothesis and then when you find out your gurus have already said the opposite you suddenly decide you were only talking about NOW!!

Oh well I guess that's as close as we are likely to get to a mea culpa.

"BUT THEN you go and rely on a proverbial invisible 'Black Swan' for why you don't accept climate change today."
Where did I say I don't "accept climate change today"?

"Feelings and suspicions are not a contrary dataset or even coherent argument."
Where did I say it was? OTOH just hoping we can quantify the various components of the climate system isn't a winning strategy either.

Look, you just don't get this. I, and most of the people you call deniers, do accept that the climate has warmed, do accept that there's been some change in various climate regional systems, do accept that man has had some part in this.

Where I diverge from the alarmist is:

1. I think man played some part, not necessarily the dominant part and most certainly is not the whole cause.
2. I don't agree the warming since 1950 is bad. A warmer world has always been beneficial to mankind, and so far, has been beneficial to this generation.
3. I don't think there's been an uptick in climate related disasters.
4. I don't think we'll ever get to 560ppm of CO2e.
5. I don't think we need to subsidise renewables.
6. I favour the IPCC's RCP 4.5 predictions over the RCP 8.5
7. I favour non-regrets mitigation policies and oppose all other mitigation measures at this time.

In summary, I accept most of the current data about climate change to the present and reject almost all the fear-mongering claims about the future and therefore oppose all claims that we have to act now.

"The atmospheric concentration of key greenhouse gases hit new highs in 2018, reaching levels not seen in at least 3 million years when sea-levels were as much as 20 metres higher than now.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a United Nations agency, said on Monday that globally averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached 407.8 parts per million (ppm) last year, up from 405.5 in 2017."

Not good news! Keep in mind that 3 million years ago the world may have been in a 'hotter' Milankovitch 'wobble' (angle, orbit, tilt etc of the Earth around the sun) to push those sea levels up even higher than today's CO2 levels indicate. But here's the thing. What do today's CO2 levels *really* mean for sea level? Recent indications show an Earth with slightly lower CO2 than today, but higher sea levels! Why? Milankovitch wobbles in the earth's angle & tilt & orbit added to the CO2 effect to cook things up a little warmer. But it's still not a good indication for today, and that West Antarctic ice sheet may go a lot earlier than we thought. The 'sleeping giant' of Antarctica could go!

This is a similar article about a more recent combination
http://theconversation.com/scientists-looked-at-sea-levels-125-000-years-in-the-past-the-results-are-terrifying-126017