There are two groups in the climate debate: those who believe human CO2 is causing global warming/climate change and those who don't, respectively labeled Warmists and Skeptics. Warmists try to deny the difference, arguing skeptics are simply wrong. They refuse to debate, claiming the debate is over, which is like saying the science is settled. Both sides believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming, but disagree on the amount. Warmists claim it explains 90 percent, Skeptics an insignificant amount. Both avoid the real issue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon. Warmists claim their computer models prove it. Skeptics do it by talking about climate sensitivity. They are both wrong, but the Skeptics are still practicing science and will adjust their views. It's the difference between the science and political science of climatology.
The Warmist position is fixed because it was achieved by corruption of the science and the scientific method. Science advances through proposing a hypothesis. Scientists then function as skeptics and challenge the assumptions on which they are based. The hypothesis became fact through the design of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's the pattern of science driven by environmentalism as a political agenda. Deliberate personal and professional attacks sidelined the few who tried to be scientific skeptics. These attacks were reinforced by mainstream media, who also accepted and promoted the hypothesis.
Warmists were on a treadmill defending the hypothesis. Over 6000 leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) delineate the challenges and political rather than scientific responses. It required three major activities. A steady flow of material that appeared to provide proof; rejection of evidence that contradicted the hypothesis; and efforts to silence critics and control research and publications.
Several years ago at a conference someone questioned CO2 as a greenhouse gas. A senior climate skeptic gave what I considered a political answer. He said it was foolish to say it was not a greenhouse gas. The best approach is to say the human contribution was insignificant. I disagreed, but had inadequate understanding of physics to openly challenge.
My concern as a climatologist was that too many pieces didn't fit or were ignored in the complex weather systems that, on average, are climate. Most troubling initially was the effective omission of water vapor as a greenhouse gas (Figure 1).
Then we learned that in the much touted Antarctic ice core record temperature increased before CO2, contradicting the main assumption of the Warmists' hypothesis.
From the start IPCC computer model predictions were wrong so they switched to projections and scenarios but were still wrong. I put these findings with other problems to conclude that the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature increase is in global climate models. IPCC models are programmed so a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase despite the evidence. In a classic circular argument, the IPCC then argue that their models prove CO2 increase causes temperature increase. Here is a summary by Friends of Science member Norm Kalmanovitch of the problems and avoidance mechanisms using climate models.
Energy flux is perfectly fine for GCM models which operate on energy transfer rates but these models cannot have their output converted to temperature values because temperature requires a time factor during which the energy flux was operating and no such time factor is available.
(This is why computer models are unable to give a timeline; that is when their forecasts will occur.)
Simply put, the GCM models are completely incapable of attributing forcing to CO2 and completely incapable attributing forcing to global temperature. The entire climate change issue has been fabricated on the basis of these models through the introduction of a CO2 forcing parameter that has no physical basis and was fraudulently created for the sole purpose of relating CO2 emissions to global temperature when no such relationship possibly existed.
Since the output from GCM models is in W/m^2 a second fabricated parameter was required to convert flux to temperature; another conversion that has no possible physical relationship that can be validated by data. This parameter called climate sensitivity was simply the value that converted the output energy flux to temperature that best fit the temperature data back to 1960 in Hansen's 1988 paper.
Now the Skeptics are dividing as they gradually recognize that neither CO2, nor its ersatz substitute climate sensitivity, function as greenhouse gases to raise global temperature or cause climate change. Studies appear more frequently reducing the climate sensitivity as they gradually accommodate the accumulating evidence. Many Skeptics dismissed and attacked the scientific evidence presented in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon, now more accept. I joined the project because the physicists confirmed my concerns about the political position taken by Skeptics. The science is settled and the debate is over for the Warmists. However, science continues with the Skeptics, as it should.