Since I seem to be repeating myself all over this thread:
It is basic physics (the optics of IR and visible light and thermodynamics) that trace amounts of CO2 and methane can significantly warm the atmosphere.
We know physics pretty damn well, and if you do not accept this, there is no conversation.
Sure, one should look at the data to see to what extent this is happening and there are all kinds of questions one can ask. But all this talk of "correlation is not causation" is nonsense.
The science around climate change is well established--it's happening, it's man-made, and it will continue--but it's a bit more complicated than that. The physics suggests a relatively small increase in temperature (<1C); it's the positive feedbacks, particularly water vapor vapor feedbacks, that make climate change so potentially costly.
I think being "all over the place" is what skeptics and "denialists" have a problem with. Let's get more data before making drastic changes to our regulations that may hurt hard-working people.
It is basic physics (the optics of IR and visible light and thermodynamics) that trace amounts of CO2 and methane can significantly warm the atmosphere.
We know physics pretty damn well, and if you do not accept this, there is no conversation.
Sure, one should look at the data to see to what extent this is happening and there are all kinds of questions one can ask. But all this talk of "correlation is not causation" is nonsense.