Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Aractus]

Hello Rhythm, let me pick apart your post, and find where the divergence lies...

It should be noted that Lindzen is not a skeptic of AGW, but of catastrophic AGW.

Incorrect, although I see how you reached this conclusion. Like 99% of sceptics, he believes that the GW trend is real, and also believes that the EGHG's may have a small contribution. His view is that the trend is probably naturally derived.

It should also be noted that his major publication on the subject has been discredited and that he himself, after reviewing the criticism offered to it, conceded that he had handled his data very poorly, leading to fundamental flaws in his competing theory.

You don't need a "competing theory"... it isn't a competition. You simply evaluate the scientific theory at hand. Whether his specific theory is discredited or not has zero relevance to whether AGW is credible or not.

(1) The evidence for AGW is not low, it is phenomenally robust.

Is it? Shall we test this thesis? ...

(2) Not only do we have the data that shows the warming trend, (3) we understand why our activities have this effect. (4) We also understand how the same trend can be accomplished in the absence of our activities (which has happened in the past), and in understanding this we can conclude that those parameters have not been met in the present. (5) IOW, of all of the things that we know -can- be a cause for this sort of warming (the list is long), the only thing operating right now at any demonstrable level is human activity.

OK.
1. If the evidence and the science is robust, then show me what the global climate change trend over the last 150 years would be without human activity? Where's the graph that shows the recreated anthropogenic-free climate change over the last 15 decades?
2. Actually the data shows the raw global mean surface temperatures, many of which get adjusted (normalized) before being given to climate scientists, much of the original raw data is now unverifiable/unavailable. It is generally accepted that the data shows a clear 0.7 degree warming trend in the 20th century, but the data itself, says nothing it's just data.
3. Do we? Show me the exact breakdown of the GHE then. H2O 90%, 95%? Can you really pin it down exactly? CO2 absorbs nearly all the IR in its absorption window, thus you need much more CO2 to increase the effect, no? Where is the evidence for positive-feedback?
4. Again, if we understand it so well show me the trend without anthropogenic EGHE's, thanks.
5. Try again. What caused the MWP? Hint - some say that their computer models reproduce it using solar activity, but Mann is certain that the MWP was localized and not global, who is right?

There is still plenty of room for skepticism with regards to projections and predictions made by any particular body concerning the effects of AGW, but AGW itself is simply an expression of chemistry and physics. Certain gases have certain effects - this is a demonstrable reality. We are releasing those gases into our atmosphere - this is a demonstrable reality. As we release those certain gases into our atmosphere we have noticed a warming trend - this is a demonstrable reality.

And as I've pointed out, CO2 already manages to catch the vast majority of the IR that it is capable of absorbing, it would absorb barely any more CO2 if you trebled the level! How can it keep producing more and more warming without more and more IR absorption????