I doubt it.
I said that we can't say with any sort of real accuracy whether the earth is warming or cooling because the margin of error is to large to make a confident claim of a fraction of a degree in either direction.
Of course you are since it is clear that you don't to any real thinking or research on the topic. You simply take what is handed to you and repeat it like some sort of talking parrot. And yes, when you pretend that you are better informed on the topic, and somehow know more than I do when it is clear that you can't even do the basic math that any sort of real knowledge of the topic requires, you are being condecending. It is clear that at this point, you don't even know what you don't know, much less know enough to suggest that I am getting "part" of the topic right. Thus far, you haven't gotten even the smallest bit right.
I am saying that CO2 has no capacity to warm the atmosphere. If you define a greenhouse gas as one that simply absorbs and emits LW radiation, then it would be a greenhouse gas. If you define a greenhouse gas as one that actually has the capacity to warm the atmosphere, then no, it isn't. The greenhouse effect, by the way, is nothing more than a piss poor hypothesis without even the smallest bit of experimental evience to support it.
I already have and you prove my assesment of your knowledge by not even realizing it.
Prove a negative? You are kidding, right? You have made the claim that it is, so the onus is upon you to prove that it can absorb IR and then return that radiation to be absorbed by the surface of the earth. Lets see the experimental, or mathematical evidence to prove it
