[UCANSEE2]

I think I have drug us way off base and we are arguing minutiae which cannot even accurately be assessed.

If one argues that 130mya the amount of CO2 was exactly xxx parts per million, then surely we know exactly how many parts per million the nitrogen content was. We should know exactly how many parts per million the oxygen content was.

Do we ? Wouldn’t a difference in nitrogen/oxygen content have an effect on the ability of the CO2 to affect the ‘climate’ (on the assumption that CO2 causes changes in climate) ?

I really think this climate change debate is hinged on a push-pull scenario. Does the CO2 ‘push’ the climate, or is CO2 ‘pulled’ by the climate ?

[TigersEye]

I think I have drug us way off base and we are arguing minutiae which cannot even accurately be assessed.

I agree. As for O2 and nitrogen, yes, I think they have a good idea what past levels were and, no, I don't think either one is considered a greenhouse gas.

All the long term data available, that isn't tainted, shows temperature leading CO2, that is true.