I know. It sucks when you can't point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows us how a 20PPM increase in CO2 does any,
Arrhenius did that back in 1896. By the way, why do you have that strange arbitrary fixation on 20ppm? CO2 levels are up 120ppm, about 40% of the pre-industrial level. 40% is a very significant change, would you not agree?
much less all of the things you claim it does,
You mean the things you claim we claim it does. That is, the bizarre things you make up, like your hysterical alarmism of people living in caves and the great UN socialist conspiracy and the coming economic DOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
But we can. We directly measure the the outgoing IR radiation closing down over the greenhouse gas absorption frequencies. Smoking gun.
It's because your science sucks and isn't really science, it's a cult. You repeat the same Mantra "CO2 is melting the ice caps" until there's nothing let of your brain.
In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to be smart. I can do it, but you look ridiculous when you try.
Show us how the 2PPM of CO2 that were supposedly added to the atmosphere these last few years can start a forest fire. Can you show us how that works?
Why do you think 2 ppm of CO2 causes forest fires? That's just whack.
Instead of going off into a jealous rage because AGW science has been successful at making predictions for decades, perhaps you could try some science yourself. That is, propose a theory, and make predictions based on that theory. What denialist theory explains the current warming? What predictions does that theory make?
Remember that any cowardly evasive handwaving about "natural cycles" is a pathetic admission of surrender, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes, so you need to name the specific cause of the magical natural cycle currently in play. Otherwise, you may as well attribute it to fairies.
