There is no anthropomorphic global warming

"one can prove and have proven that co2 can act as a green house gas and can theoretically warm the planet." Not theoretically. It does. Basic physics as outlined in R2 and R2. "Where I disagree is that co2 has been proven to be the cause of global warming" No one climate scientist states that it is. It would be great if you actually read my rounds. It is one part of many.This goes back to my R1 statement of merely saying it is not true, is not good enough. "I do not think though that it has been proven that it raises temperatures significantly." Again, it is in conjunction with the other climate change factors. "Even in your 'runaway' co2 warming hypothesis, there is not evidence that co2 causes additional warming. The co2 is the effect, not the cause of warming." Firstly, my "runaway warming hypothesis" was in reference to ice age warming (the previous paragraphs) secondly and this refers to you reading again, I have stated several times that CO2 and temperature have been shown to act on each other. CO2 causes temperature rises; temperature rises in turn increase CO2. "The researchers estimate that this effect could cut by two-thirds the projected increase in global temperatures initiated by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How do you know that increasing co2 didn't 'cause' this vent to work?" How do you know it did? What is inherent in CO2 that it can create a seabed vent? Merely postulating it as such does not give the notion any more validity. To actually make your point (the article is 2001) you have 7 years of data to show (1) correlatory evidence (2) Physical evidence i.e CO2 increase caused by said vent. You have not. "Not to mention our minimal knowledge of cloud formation." Yours maybe, less so those that dedicate their careers to such things. "And I do not agree with your contention that solar variability is irrelevent:" And I do not take my evidence from a blogger. The articles author that the blog uses is a self informed i.e. non professional climate modeller. Now for evidence i.e. scientific as opposed to the, I can surf the internet, sort of your blogger. There is no evidence of a link between cosmic rays and warming temperatures on Earth. "A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it." http://www.iop.org... Cosmic rays are energetic particles from space that travel at near the speeds of light when they hit the atmosphere. They are redirected toward the Earth by the Sun and some have claimed that changes in solar activity deflect varying amounts of cosmic rays towards us. A favourite theory among climate sceptics is that the rays are responsible for boosting the formation of clouds, which in turn could be warming the planet. "finding no evidence of a link between the ionizing cosmic rays and the production of low cloud cover" http://domino.lancs.ac.uk... So no, it is not solar, or cloud formation as you propose. "not wholly discounted by the IPCC and climate modellers" So I think we can safely say that said climate modellers are sceptics and not actual climate modellers in the scientific sense it is used. I think we can also safely say the name drop IPCC is there purely because I gave you a link to their site. Actually showing where they say so would be great, unless, clearly, they do not say such things. :) Which brings us to the end of your arguments, and the rather glaring fact that you have done absolutely nothing to show that my proof is wrong in any real scientific evidential sense. "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture." (IPCC Report on Climate Change: 2007) Feel free to read the report summary http://media.newscientist.com...