Seeing the comments you make concerning AGW and greenhouse gasses with respect to your designation as a Geochemist bewilders me somewhat. Perhaps you would provide a chemical description of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that show them not the be the growing problem that some 97 percent of the worlds practicing climate scientists find it to be?
False.
I and many other that oppose "the sky is falling" CAGW understand and agree thst CO2 emissions will and dors have an effect on Earth's temperature.
I will sau it again, the 97% number includes scientist who know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thst man's hydrocarbon oxidation emissions, when burned cleanly, produce CO2 that increases over time in Earth's atmosphere.
Big deal. The "97% of all world practicing climate science" is an inaccurate fact, in stating such only "supports your side" and not both sides.
Are you bias?
The issue is the real world forcing of such Anthropogenic CO2 emissions on Earth's temperature.
And, the onesided view that the feedbacks will be "positive", as presented by IPCC.
What about looking in nature over time for posdible negative feedbacks. Is that called skepticism or science?
These typrs of science discussion have become extremely polarized. With the "we have settled science" side looking down on others who say "show me", like me.
If the GCMs were right, the Earth’s temperature showing the calculated forcing, and the +25% additional Anthropogenic CO2 emissions since 2000 letting all to observe what CO2 emissions induced forcing and associated predicted positive feedbacks are creating then I would follow the evidence. There would be no claims because of validation of the theory.
But in 2015 we see the opposite. Mother Nature is still in control, and CO2 Climate Sensitivity at this time well below 1°C.
These are factual observations. Let's set aside the intense polarization that is vibrantly pushing people to do extreme things and have intense emotions and mindsets.
I type on a vertual 2.5" keyboard, rxcuse the typo's.