Grendel,

You're obviously looking for an out, because you're out of depth and out of your usual modus operandi of making shallow snipes without substance and without thinking it through.

Let's say you were planning a holiday several months ahead, would you give up on the basis that we have no proof that the airline will still be in business then?

If we wanted proof, we'd never carry out engineering projects for example.

The best we can do is to make our predictions on the basis of the best evidence available.

Does Carbon dioxide act as a Greenhouse Gas? Yes. Does the Earth's Carbon balance demonstrate that carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere, adding approximately 1-2ppm each year? Yes.

Is there evidence that the CO2 is from fossil fuel burning and cement production? Yes - on the basis that these sources have a specific isotope signature.

Will the CO2 translate to an increase in global average temperatures?
Yes, because of the fundamental propoerties of CO2.

But isn't water the most important Greenhouse Gas, and didn't you guys forget about it when you did your calculations?

- er guess what - It's accounted for. This may surprise you but climatologists do actually know elementary climatology theory.

"Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."  - AR4WG1 - FAQ's

We're talking about convincing evidence that we're headed for trouble right now. It's not a 50:50 Pascal Wager situation, it's about as dead cert as you can get.

- and Grendel - Why don't you find a nice girl and settle down?

Getting bored conspiranut.
I don't believe I was talking to you

To tell you truth BO, boredom was reached many many moons ago with you. The lack of logical response that you provide tanscends boredom, it goes into uncharted territories.

Of course answering simple questions has always been one of your pet aversions hasn't it BO?

You still haven't quite grasped that concept have you?

Quote:

There is no testable scientific theory in climate speculations. There is only conjecture and speculation based on computer models. All the abracadabra is about tic-tacing about the data of the simulations. This is not scinece in the sence of formulating a theory, testing it experimentally and trying to replicatee the experiment to test the findings and thus refining the original theory.

There are plenty of testable theories. Using similations does not negate this.

The fact that sitting in front of a computer is not conducting an experiment has no bearing on whether the theories underpinning climate change science are testable. They are still testable, even if someone decided to consult their tea leaves over them.