What is it that you deny? There are multiple steps in the pro-AGW argument:?

1) The average temperature of the Earth has increased in the past 70 years.

CORRECTION: The Earth's temperature has been rising since around 1650. Look it up! It is on page 202 of the 1990 IPCC report.

CORRECTION 2: If these know it all scientists really think that is true, how come so many of them that were alive at the time predicted an ICE AGE?

2) Consider a column of air, lit from above by sunshine. If you increase the fraction of CO2 in the air, the ground temperature increases.

I have seen many of those 'experiments' and they aren't worth anything near scientific.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail... (This one was so visibly bad they finally took it off the internet.)

3) On average, each human burns a ton of fossil fuel per year, emitting CO2.

WOW! That is amazing that you figured that out. But what does that mean about the Earth warming? NOTHING! May I direct your attention to this chart:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2...

Notice that this chart uses (1)RAW DATA. (2) The temperature goes down. (3) And historically the CO2 level went up during that same period.

4) The measured increase in CO2 is consistent with about half of the human-emitted CO2 dwelling in the atmosphere for many decades.

This measured increase is taken beside a volcano and is used for the 'world standard. Very unscientific! It may have more to do with volcano activity than CO2 level worldwide.

6) If the few degrees of warming due to CO2 causes the net release of methane and other greenhouse gasses, the maximum effect in the next few centuries could be more than 10 C.

"If the few degrees of warming due to CO2" Now you are getting pathetic! You just claim CO2 is raising the temperature. You have no proof! In a scientific evaluation one must always establish the first point before going on to the second point. Where did you learn science? Those 'multiple steps' you are taking are really multiple stumbles. And if you knew anything about science you surely would know at least that much!

7) Global warming by more than 10 C would likely result in the extinction of a majority of species and a vast reduction in human population.

That is just theory. Do you know the difference between fact and theory? I would explain it to you but your head is so filled with obvious crap that it doesn't have room for true science. And your seven steps confirm that.

Go back and learn some real science and for Pete's sake, stop listening to Al Gore and Bill Nye!

Even I deny something.

I deny that we can keep on adding massive amounts of a proven heat trapping gas to the atmosphere without expecting consequences.

I deny that progress has ended with the hydrocarbon era. Instead, progress will lead us to the post-hydrocarbon era.

I did not read your long post. I deny that any of the proposed solutions would be effective in addressing CO2, and they all have massive costs especially to the poor in the US. So no carbon tax, little to no cap and trade, no to bribing other developing countries to become better competitors, no to allowing developing countries to increase their emissions. Pretty simple!

All

Deniers deny all of those things.

And they dismiss any or all evidence to the contrary.

Yes

Cosmo, total fiction.

The Sun is the major driver of the Earth's climate. The Sun is subject to cycles, which affect it's energy level or TSI. The Sun's orbital variations and those of the large gas planets in the solar system affect the total TSI too. This later variable is called Planetary Mechanics.

Zharkova et al (2015) exposes the Sun's role : https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689#f6

CO2 is a non factor in climate change as the Vostok/Greenland scientific ice core analysis proves the CO2 follows Earth temperature rises it does not lead, leaving the Sun as the boss.

The Sun, galactic influences and Nature are the drivers of the Earth's climate, Anthropogenic Global Warming is political myth.

You are right, there are multiple steps and they need to hang together. Proving cause and effect is harder than many realise. It is not sufficient to say that A happens and B happens therefore A caused B.

1) There is a paper (I think by Scafetta and West) that considers activity of the sun in comparison to global warming. They explained 75% of the warming between 1900 and 1950 by solar activity alone. The fact that CO2 is the only possible cause suggested by the media does not make it true. They are just presenting what suits them.

2) Are we sure that works in the atmosphere? It works with a lamp and a glass tube in the lab but that is not quite the same thing.

3) Don't know. I will believe you.

4) OK, that may well be true as well. As CO2 levels have exceeded 7,000 ppm in the past, how confident are we that the suggested increase is all due to man?

5) Don't think computer models are magic. They usually comprise a subset of the real situation and in the case of complex models they usually lack sufficient detail. For instance, how many models include solar activity? Are they sufficiently detailed to include individual thunder storms? What number do they use for temperature sensitivity to CO2? The IPCC can't define that to within a factor of 3. In any case, the models usually run hot and they do not hindcast very well.

(Short story: Many years ago I saw an item on TV about climate models. They claimed that Europe would be a desert within a few years. The presenter asked what the model said Europe was like now - i.e. when the program was aired. He was told it was a desert then as well!)

6) Maybe.

7) Probably.

There are scientists considering other causes, like the sun, and some have managed to hindcast for 3,000 years with some success. Obviously, that success is dependent on how accurate data for the past is.

If the temperature had been static for 4.5 billion years then man came along and it started increasing then you would have a point. The reality is that temperature and CO2 have been varying by far more than now for most of that time. Why are we so sure it is our fault now.

One major snag is that in the last half a million years, CO2 changes followed temperature changes . That suggests that temperature is actually controlled by something other than CO2.

They are wrong

It isn't a matter of deny. It is matter of having proper skepticism for unproved theories.

<<<1) The average temperature of the Earth has increased in the past 70 years.>>> It has been warming for 300 years. Interesting that you failed to mention that.

<<<2) Consider a column of air, lit from above by sunshine. If you increase the fraction of CO2 in the air, the ground temperature increases.>>>

Yet temperatures barely rose in the last 20 years even as CO2 continued to increase.

<<<3) 4) On average, each human burns a ton of fossil fuel per year, emitting CO2.>>>

No response needed.

<<<5) Complex computer models of the Earth's climate suggest that if the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 continues, temperatures will be several degrees hotter at the end of this century.>>>

Yeah they are very complex using variables that are poorly understood. Garbage in, garbage out.

<<6) If the few degrees of warming due to CO2 causes the net release of methane and other greenhouse gasses, the maximum effect in the next few centuries could be more than 10 C.>>

Nonsense

<<7) Global warming by more than 10 C would likely result in the extinction of a majority of species and a vast reduction in human population.>>

Yeah and we could be attacked by rabid wombats. Some risks I'm willing to take.

GIRL I'LL HAVE YOU FEELING RIGHT