re: #373 LudwigVanQuixote

really, then how Pythagoras does this say that the basic science of AGW is not settled? I defined what I meant by that upthread.

How does this refute CO2 as a GHG or as the primary driver of AGW?

How does this affect the primary feedback mechanisms?

I;ll be honest and say that the ozone hole which incidently was also man caused does play a role in AGW models, but how does this paper unsettle the science?

As usual you are writing some pretty unscientific stuff.

You are correct — I stand corrected. Since you did not claim in 284 that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change, the article does not refute what you said. The article (which according to the link has been accepted after peer review) does challenge the theory that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change — a claim made by some on this thread. Still, you are right, the BASIC science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not challenged by this paper.

As for the insult — it’s beneath you. I usually enjoy this more.