In recent climate change chats on Huffington/Slate/Cheat type sites I’ve noticed that among those who support global warming, those who come from a background of Physics, chemistry, math and real sciences have cogent arguments, even if I don’t agree with them.
But those who invoke environmental science and similar college courses are totally incoherent in their arguments. And those with a background in diversity courses or humanities seem unable to get beyond the ad hominem arguments.
There are probably exceptions. But there does seem to be a pattern.
No, their arguments are not cogent. If you use an atmosphere that does not exist anywhere on the planet as a baseline for measuring, then it is garbage, not science.