Climate change skeptic turned proponent

[Aractus]

First off, the negative feedback mechanism would cool the earth not heat it. So without a negative feedback mechanism we should expect an exponential rise in temperature.

Sorry yes I meant positive feedback mechanism. We do know there is a negative feedback mechanism (in the presence of increased CO2 the oceans increase their absorption) that does go a way to maintaining the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

There is also a positive feedback mechanism that fights against the negative feedback. The two are not at equilibrium. The positive one is winning and thats why we are seeing an almost exponential rise in temperature.

That's not how a positive feedback mechanism works. The argument is that other atmospheric content "magnify" the effect that CO2 has.

CO2 is a GHG. How do other GHG direct it, but not the CO2 GHG? How can you get such a high correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise?

Because it's just a correlation, and it in fact doesn't correlate correctly until it's passed through a complicated computer modelling program that specifically has a positive feedback parameter on the CO2. Without knowing what it is or why it's there. Is it H2O? Nitrogen? Something else? All they say is that they "know it exists because it's in the computer models"; and why is it in the computer models? Because they put it there.

Let's put this in perspective, say the Higgs Boson. It is believed that the Higgs Boson may have been experimentally observed, however well before we observed it we described it in detail what was thought to exist. With CO2's positive feedback element there's no theory whatsoever behind it, other than the fact that "if you add that parameter to the computer model you can correlate climate change to being driving by CO2". There was no theory before that which supported the idea, and it hasn't been experimentally observed. And with this we're not talking about something as difficult to observe as the Higgs Boson - if it was there it should be obvious and easy to test for and confirm.

We don't have to assume anything. The temperatures of the earth at the MWP were measured.

What with weather stations do you mean?

We have this very well known cause, antropogenic GHG. The other theories were not able to reproduce the heating trend we're seeing.

So what? There doesn't have to be any other theory for the present one to be incorrect.

Where are you getting your numbers for the decrease in temperature? Plus, your argument is "our instruments can't measure it then it's not worth it." That is ridiculous.

No, saying that something less than 0.1 degrees is meaningful is ridiculous.