paul, "greenhouse effect doesn't exist", indeed, a silly heading, as if there was no greenhouse effect the earth would be much much colder than it is now.
The issue I have with AGW is that it is very difficult to show that it exists in reality. So I have a problem with the agw-ists who insist that warming, or weather events, droughts etc. are caused by "A"gw. There is absolutely no scientific proof of this, and I am anti that sort of stuff.
Even worse, the agw people insist that their models show that any climatic change or event is due to agw. As they have so many various models, that is easy to do. But models are just that - models - and to be valid must be consistent. They need not be scientific (none of them are, because they can't take into account the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere), they can be empirical models, but no, the agw-ists try to achieve respectability by insisting that they have science on their side. That, to me, is ludicrous.
On a practical note, we minimise our carbon footprint to a fair extent anyway, just as a sensible, economical and ecological thing to do. We could do more, but governments prohibit some measures, and make others totally uneconomical.
