Neither you or Anonymint has an arguable point. He would argue that the Religious Warmer's co2/lag argument is "this time it's different", which is not impossible but a recognized logical problem.
No I argued the irrefutable point that they have presented no falsifiable science, because they are just picking models out of their ass assuming some variables matter but not others, finding one of many possible statistical correlations, and declaring that to be cause & effect.
That is not science.
Maybe one day you will learn what science is.
Perhaps you might even learn what aliasing error and long-tail distributions are.
It is not my burden to prove them wrong, it is their burden to prove something using real science.
Agreed. But your "temperature lags co2 rise" argument is not terribly better is it?
And if it is an argument, then it is an argument against what, if there is no falsifiable science presented?