Char, you offer correlations as proofs...

No, I cite them as evidence. If there were no correlation, wouldn't you cite that as disconfirmatory? Since there is a correlation, it has to be considered as tending to confirm the hypothesis. It is not proof, and I have repeated that many times. It's revealing that you have to lie to make your argument sound reasonable.

The entire matter consists of unsupported factoids and and a general lack of real knowledge.

And I suppose that explains why the big majority of the world's climate scientists agrees with me and not you?