[steveab]

So, CO2 drives the Climate. So you are putting your faith in a playstation GHG models?
Of course the GHG models, for the past 30 years, have never been peer-reviewed or validated!
CO2 induced global warming, rename to CO2 climate change, rename climate change is a scam.
I wonder how the GHG models will play out against the DATA QUALITY ACT.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

So, CO2 drives the Climate. So you are putting your faith in a playstation GHG models? Of course the GHG models, for the past 30 years, have never been peer-reviewed or validated! CO2 induced global warming, rename to CO2 climate change, rename climate change is a scam. I wonder how the GHG models will play out against the DATA QUALITY ACT.

You can stand there and stamp your foot as long as you want, but that does not change the fact that the physics and chemistry of "greenhouse effects" are well understood, and that if you want to argue that AGW cannot be happening, you have to come up with some way to explain why greenhouse processes are not operating to increase global temperatures.

This this is exactly what skeptics of AGW have been unable to do - it's not enough just to argue that some other process is operating to retard or accelerate the observed warming, you need to be be to explain why the "greenhouse effects" resulting from the steady increase in AGGs have not done so irrespective of whatever other "natural" background processes also affect climate.