re: #1078 californiabrowser

Charles,

re 914

1) is not controversial.
2) is vague—do you mean that in a controlled experiment in a laboratory—in a flask, say, that CO2 is warming, then yes, and that is NOT disputed. BUT, and then but here is the crux of the matter, the question is both attribution: (a) how much (and with what level of uncertainty) of the observed change in temperature can be attributed to human activity (CO2 and GHGs, aerosols, land use, etc) and (b) how reliable are future predictions of climate under various assumptions (‘scenarios’). The answer to these questions is in dispute. For example, see the online petition and the list of scientists who have signed it. Sadly, your assertions of the certainty in what is known on climate change are only reducing your credibility among many of us who have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the AGW problem. Why would anyone rely on your judgment when you write with about other topics? Are you missing the point there as you are here?

Umm you do realize that your list of “scientists” is bogus and filled with cranks, TV weathermen, talking heads for right-wing foundations and well, no real scientists?

You do realize that this has been debunked here and many other places many times and is a complete propaganda ploy.

As to your discussion of what is in a flask, you are just completely insane. Look at post #14 to see real links from real scientists who take the time to carefully explain the science. It has actual data and actual facts.

Please take the time to look at it.