Well that's the unique thing about this science, I guess. We don't have a "control" universe to test. Our understanding comes from the very thing we are trying to observe.
Yes it was my assumption on Monckton actually meant. However all he said was "we have seen an almost doubling of CO2". instead of just saying (and assuming on your part too!) he can't do simple math (not being able to multiply 280x2 and comparing to 390), isn't it more likely that he might have meant something more? This is how science is normally done in other fields. With respect.
Additionally, CO2e is equal to CO2. This is derived by the same climate scientists and using the same models and fed back into the same models. If you buy one side of the argument, I don't think it make sense to not buy the other.
There is no space for contradictions. Usually contradictions are proof of an invalidation of theories!
If you feel you have given due respect to the analysis and the original argument and still feel there is a flaw then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree!
