"The climate is warming, due to human activity" is a reasonable claim, and is backed by an avalanche of evidence. So, there's that.
So. Let's say my doctor tells me "you have lung cancer," even though I never smoked cigarettes, did not have much exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, and was otherwise at low risk. I'd go to a specialist anyway, due to the severity of the disease, so let's count that as our 2nd opinion.
If the 2nd doctor gave me the same answer as the first, I'd basically be convinced.
If the 3rd doctor gave me the same answer as the first two, I'd be completely convinced.
If the 4th doctor gives me the same answer, I'm obviously just in denial, and doctor-shopping.
If 90 doctors all agreed, and the 91st doctor who disagreed was a quack who was in the pay of RJ Reynolds, should I believe him?
And yes, that is the current situation. No matter how badly you want to deny it, there is a solid scientific consensus that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change at this time.
The climate is warming due to Human activity, absolutely, but that in no way validates the catastrophic claims of the IPCC.
What exactly do you think this avalanche of evidence is, and what does it support?
CO2 can absorb 15 um photons under the right conditions, but that alone would only cause 1.1 C of warming for doubling the CO2
level, even using the un validated 3.71 Wm-2 number of the IPCC.
Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof! When people make extraordinary claims, we should all expect extraordinary proof.
What is the proof that CO2 emissions can cause harm?
What is the proof that doubling the CO2 level will result in X amount of warming?
We have a nice concept, of CO2 warming, which sounds plausible on the surface, followed by a crowd of WHAT IF, THEN statements.
It goes something like this,
Doubling the CO2 level can force an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, which would force the surface troposphere system to warm by about 1.1C.
WHAT IF that warming triggered feedbacks to amplify that warming even further? THEN maybe bad things could happen,
especially if the equilibrium warming were 3C or higher, after a unknown latency period.
WHAT IF the equilibrium warming, was actually 3 C or higher, THEN all these other bad things could happen!
And those bad things could trigger other bad things.
And the ultimate What if, WHAT IF, the amplified warming passes some tipping point, and can never cool down again!!!!
It is all bootstrapping on the idea that 2XCO2 could cause an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2.
Yet we cannot actually measure that the forcing is happening at that rate, nor detect any part of the observed warming
that could be considered feedbacks beyond the noise.
