DrChaos, your scientific arguments looks reasonable and it passes the sniff test, but the underlying problem I have with what you said is that there’s no hard evidence of anything you stated. It’s the usual hand-waving and assumptions where absense of hard evidence falls into favor of anthropogenic warming.
“Real scientists have thought of all the possible complications, years and decades before any of the debunkers knew abou them. The effects have been investigated very thoroughly and seriously, and the current conclusion reflects those investigations. ”
I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that. Climate science is full of controversy and misrepresentations. The largest trend I seem to notice is that the younger scientists, the one who enter the field with an environmentalist agenda, are contradicting the older generation of climatologists, who only had the agenda of understanding climate.
If something is true, then it should withstand the test of time and the scrutiny of skeptics whose interests are not anti-environmental, but rather for rigorous adherence to sound scientific methology.
As far as the logarithmic growth of CO2, I was hasty in formulating a reply. My point really was that IPCC predictions of future temperature assumes a linear relationship in increases CO2 versus increases in temperature, leading to overly-high estimates of 5.8 C warmth. But having said that, my faith in the IPCC in having any kind of accurate model that relates CO2 to temperature is very low, because it is based on exaggerated assumptions about the warming-capacity of CO2 in the first place. The correlation between CO2 and temperature (which can be adequately explaned by oceanic chemistry) was taken to be a causal one when it came time to create computer models.
