Do We Understand CO2?

Image credit

I have made this comment here.

I have been wondering for quite some time why the basic physics of CO2 receives so little attention by skeptics and sense that there is not much secure understanding of it among all parties disputing the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (CAGW-H).

Those who address the basics – like e.g. CO2IsLife – do not seem to be taken up much by the rest of the skeptical community. One would suspect that if CO2 is physically incapable of achieving the peril ascribed to it by CAGW-H, skeptics would make this fact the center of their argument – or criticise such a theory if it were wrong. Instead, this fundamental issue is being rather avoided, I feel. If my observation is correct, why should this be so?

I commend the skeptics for trying to ensure a truly scientific treatment of the issue and succeeding especially in pointing out methodological errors and empirical evidence contradicting CAGW-H. They deny the hypothesis to the best of their ability – which is the scientific way, putting obstacles in the way of the alarmists’ faith-based stampede. 

I hope, in addition to these efforts, henceforth more attention will be directed to the physics of CO2. I look forward to the day when someone will be able to explain to me, a layperson, what contributions we can expect CO2 to make to climate and whether it is physically capable of exerting a significant impact on temperatures in the manner proposed by CAGW-H.