Once again, you are mistaking your stupidity as theirs. They certainly do have science showing man has caused the warming. Do you know what a negative feedback mechanism is? No matter how many times you cite bullshit, it is still bullshit. CO2 does not act like a thermostat. Nor does science say it does. Period, end of story. Do you know what a negative feedback mechanism is? Apparently you don't.
1. your ignorance is stunning... one of the better papers your side has (although still speculative) speaks of CO2 being a thermostat. 2. from wikipedia. A thermostat is a component of a control system which senses the temperature of a system so that the system's temperature is maintained near a desired setpoint. The thermostat does this by switching heating or cooling devices on or off, or regulating the flow of a heat transfer fluid as needed, to maintain the correct temperature. 3. according to greenhouse theory GHC trap heat in. according to NASA and the study I just quoted... CO2 also keeps heat out. 4. That is why they say it is like a thermostat... einstein you are not... did you get your degree online?
So you still don't know what a negative feedback mechanism is and that a thermostat is a negative feedback mechanism and CO2 does not act like a negative feedback mechanism. You need more than a WIKI article to help you. But the switching on and off is the negative feedback mechanism. CO2 does not do that. CO2 acts like a blanket. Blankets are not negative feedback mechanisms Why you can't understand this simple concept is a mystery. But it could have something to do with you being a right wing nut job above all else. And "they" do not say CO2 is a thermostat you fucking lying douchebag.
Let's see what NASA has to say about this. CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/ A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth. There is a close analogy to be drawn between the way an ordinary thermostat maintains the temperature of a house, and the way that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) control the global temperature of Earth. The ordinary thermostat produces no heat of its own. Its role is to switch the furnace on and off, depending on whether the house temperature is lower or higher than the thermostat setting. If we were to carefully monitor the temperature of the house, we would see that the temperature does not stay constant at the set value, but rather exhibits a "natural variability" as the house temperature slips below the set value and then overshoots the mark with a time constant of minutes to tens of minutes, because of the thermal inertia of the house and because heating by the furnace (when it is on) is more powerful than the steady heat loss to the outdoors. If the thermostat is suddenly turned to a very high setting, the temperature will begin to rise at a rate dictated by the inertia of the house and strength of the furnace. Turning the thermostat back to normal will stop the heating. Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. (more at above url)
It's true, look at Venus. Atmospheric, "thermostatic" CO2 there is holding temps at a pretty steady 460<sup>o</sup> C.
You fail to mention that 96.5% of Venuses atmosphere is CO2. The percentage of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is 0.0387%. Pie chart of the atmosphere of Venus. The chart on the right is an expanded view of the trace elements that all together do not even make up a tenth of a percent.
Thanks for this, I can see why you/jem would accept the analogy and perhaps I was too hard on you both for running with it. However, despite what the Dr says - and I otherwise respect him very much - the analogy is NOT a close one. Here is a graphic from that article. So we can see there are both forcing factors and responding, or feedback factors. CO2 is NOT a feedback factor. A thermostat is a feedback factor. More precisely, the CO2 levels act as the "temperature setting" ON the thermostat. He says this here... "The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earthâs greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster." http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/lacis-at-nasa-on-role-of-co2-in-warming/?_r=0 So the CO2 level is analogous to the set-point ON the thermostat whereas water vapor and clouds act as the thermostatic/feedback mechanism itself. ************************ This is an example of why you can't cherry pick one statement, one chart, one study, to act as the foundation of an argument. Unless of course your intent is to deceive, and circumvent the 97% of charts, studies and statements that make your argument look ridiculous. This is also a good example of the kind of thing found on denialist websites which is where jem probably found it to begin with.
oh you could see how I chose to educate myself by reading the papers and you kept yourself ignorant of the science. and you of course realize that paper is simply and explanation of how it might work... that is not proof of a theory. Which is part of the reason I did not quote it.