And as to the Arctic ice melting before human intervention please provide proof.
Bengtsson, L, 2004. The early twentieth-century warming it the Arctic – a possible mechanism. Journal of Climate,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<4045:TETWIT>2.0.CO;2
The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C. Whether this event is an example of an internal climate mode or is externally forced, such as by enhanced solar effects, is presently under debate. This study suggests that natural variability is a likely cause, with reduced sea ice cover being crucial for the warming. A robust sea ice–air temperature relationship was demonstrated by a set of four simulations with the atmospheric ECHAM model forced with observed SST and sea ice concentrations. An analysis of the spatial characteristics of the observed early twentieth-century surface air temperature anomaly revealed that it was associated with similar sea ice variations. Further investigation of the variability of Arctic surface temperature and sea ice cover was performed by analyzing data from a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. By analyzing climate anomalies in the model that are similar to those that occurred in the early twentieth century, it was found that the simulated temperature increase in the Arctic was related to enhanced wind-driven oceanic inflow into the Barents Sea with an associated sea ice retreat. The magnitude of the inflow is linked to the strength of westerlies into the Barents Sea. This study proposes a mechanism sustaining the enhanced westerly winds by a cyclonic atmospheric circulation in the Barents Sea region created by a strong surface heat flux over the ice-free areas. Observational data suggest a similar series of events during the early twentieth-century Arctic warming, including increasing westerly winds between Spitsbergen and Norway, reduced sea ice, and enhanced cyclonic circulation over the Barents Sea. At the same time, the North Atlantic Oscillation was weakening.
Koerner, R.M., Ice core evidence for extensive melting of the Greenland ice sheet in the last interglacial. Science, V 244, pp 964-968. DOI: 10.1126/science.244.4907.964
[quote
]Evidence from ice at the bottom of ice cores from the Canadian Arctic Islands and Camp Century and Dye-3 in Greenland suggests that the Greenland ice sheet melted extensively or completely during the last interglacial period more than 100 ka (thousand years ago), in contrast to earlier interpretations. The presence of dirt particles in the basal ice has previously been thought to indicate that the base of the ice sheets had melted and that the evidence for the time of original growth of these ice masses had been destroyed. However, the particles most likely blew onto the ice when the dimensions of the ice caps and ice sheets were much smaller. Ice texture, gas content, and other evidence also suggest that the basal ice at each drill site is superimposed ice, a type of ice typical of the early growth stages of an ice cap or ice sheet.
If the present-day ice masses began their growth during the last interglacial, the ice sheet from the earlier (Illinoian) glacial period must have competely or largely melted during the early part of the same interglacial period. If such melting did occur, the 6-meter higher-than-present sea level during the Sangamon cannot be attributed to disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, as has been suggested.[/quote]
And yes correlation does not mean causation, but you need it to prove your point. As you are disputing the claim it’s up to you to show an alternative theory consistent with observations.
As I said, there is no onus to show an alternative theory consistent with observations....that is not the way science works. Finding holes in theories via testing against observations etc is one of the most important pieces of scientific research. Pointing out flaws in a theory does not need validation by supplying an alternative theory. And what "claim" am I disputing? You made no claim whatsoever. And what "point" did I supposedly make? What I said was correlation does not mean causation...I don't think that needs proving does it?
