are climate change deniers naturally gullible?, page-125

Climate science is hugely complicated. Fact of the matter is that no one really knows exactly what effect added CO2 has had, we can only get ball-park understandings. Fact is also a large part of the debate has been deliberately alarmist until recently. An example. Some say that the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere is 30 % of the green-house effect. That would be about 10 degrees Celsius or so from the net 33 degree Celsius green-house gas effect we have on this Earth. This being the case, then a 30 percent increase in CO2 over the past 100 years due to industrialization should have had way more of an effect than the 1 degree Celsius rise we experienced last century which I maintain was largely natural given that we were on the up temperature wise before industrialization.

Water vapour is 5 times better than absorbing radiation than CO2 and 50 times more prevalent. Yes the IPCC acknowledges it as a green-house gas however also the IPCC understates its significance and wrongfully inflates the significance of CO2. On this matter the IPCC relies on the works of people like Kevin Trenberth who was involved in the climate gate scandal. It is his work that states that CO2 can be up to 30 % of the green-house gas effect.

At the end of the day no one wants to damage the Earth. Most people want sustainability including myself. Also most people do not want to be conned into paying more taxes and falling into a tighter control grid which would be no good for 99 % of the population.

It is very hard to understand how people can jump on the AGW ban-wagon so easily?