be convinced that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whilst be unconvinced that a doubling will cause more than 1C of warming. There are in fact many shades of thinking among the "convinced" and "unconvinced", and those always aiming at the absolutes (eg Gleick) are an obvious impediment to the science, because it's them the one dragging it into the politics. Another place to look is Anthony Watts WUWT for a variety of links to all the science available both pro and con. The tiny mass of mans CO2 compared to the mass 0f all CO2 compared to the mass of atmospheric water compared to the mass of all water compared to the mass of the entire earth shows such a tiny fraction of influence as to be insignificant. Imagine dropping a 400 degree F BB into an Olympic sized pool and the measurable increase in temp and you can see the affect of mans CO2 in the atmosphere. One problem with skepticalscience is the use of circular reasoning. A top of my head example is the assertion that temps have been stable for 2000 years until man started with fossil fuel and then straight up with added CO2. Mann's famous false hockey stick graph is the IPCC basis for their AGW claim and the number one hat hanger for intervention via cap and trade. If this point is false then the rest does not make sense Cook tries to argue temp stability with the settled science argument and studies have