"i’ll call you on this. There isn’t increasing research. It’s just a straight out lie."
A typical climate science denial (AKA "climate alarmist) diatribe.
You mistakenly claim it is a lie because you don't understand what was said. It was not a claim that the GHG effect did not exist, but the extent and role of it's actual effect on climate both "global" and regional.
I could cite papers and research and models engaged in ongoing research trying to better understand the role of clouds, other GHG emissions from melting permafrost, diminishing sea ice, snow cover, jet stream and grand ocean current deviations and their possible causes, whether the GHG effect is directly proportional to ppm atmosphere, even the direct contribution to atmospheric heat from cities and widespread use of airconditioning etc.
However, instead I'll use your method also favoured by Redc and tell you to use your own research dept because mine is too busy to spend time helping you overcome your laziness.
"tell us again Copperbod how CO2, which is known universally as a greenhouse gas, isn’t a greenhouse gas. Give us the lowdown Coppperbod,,cite the papers."
Your ignorance here can't be blamed on laziness so presumably it's proof of poor comprehension and that you don't bother to read what others say or are in the early stages of drug induced dementia. All magnified by some sort of inferiority complex triggered by anyone who can string more than two sentences together.
Remember you already put up that silly question before...
"it’s a pity that you can’t even answer a simple one such as do you think CO2 is known universally as a greenhouse gas because (1) that’s one of it’s properties or (2) that isn’t one of its properties."
to which my reply post https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/41860696/single was ...
"A typical *** argument. Is there any question that CO2 is considered a "greenhouse" gas ? That is not the question. The question is what that means in practice as part of Earth's complex and fluid climate system. No genuine "climate scientist" would make the black and white claims of certainty that you do. Your position is ideological not an attempt to understand what is happening and it's causes."
Really I have nothing more to add.
Unless you wish to help Redc with the request just above what you chose to quote, "BTW, show me where I have ever denied "climate science" or climate change or for that matter AGW. You don't seem able to understand that climate science is an active ongoing process with new insights gained every day."
