>"1. The laws of physics were proven to false and it turned out the CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere." Most skeptics agree that CO2 traps energy in t

>"1. The laws of physics were proven to false and it turned out the CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere." Most skeptics agree that CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere. By itself, a doubling of CO2 should cause about 1 degree of warming. But climate models say a doubling of CO2 will cause anywhere from 2 to 12 degrees of heating. So you can be a climate skeptic without breaking any laws of physics. Climate "sensitivity" estimates are highly uncertain and are all over the map. Most of the predicted warming is due to climate "sensitivity" estimates, not CO2 directly. >"2. The sun was proven to be increasing significantly in solar output and this explained the warming we have seen to date." We do know the planet was warming before CO2 could have had any significant effect. If there were some change in solar radiation in the past it would take time for the earth to warm and come to a point of equilibrium. There is nothing ruling out this possibility. >"3. The planet stopped warming and started cooling." There has been no statistically significant warming for over 22 years according to satellite data. >"4. The source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere was found to not be the result of burning fossil fuels." Highly unlikely. >"5. We had highly predictive and accurate models that showed that warming via the accumulation of CO2 is not possible." What if we could show that warming is increasing at a much lower rate than predicted by climate models? https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/christy_cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png?w=870&h=783 https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/christy_cmi...