"The other side" seems to push a number of arguments from the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect violates fundamental physics (it doesn't, no serious scienti

"The other side" seems to push a number of arguments from the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect violates fundamental physics (it doesn't, no serious scientist would argue that no matter how much they disagree with the IPCC conclusions) to disagreeing on whether the increase in CO2 is driven by warming climate instead of the other way to arguing about the specific numbers of projected radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. But you are correct. If the official IPCC estimate is that the increased radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases is [+2.07 - +2.53] W/m^2, are you "disagreeing with the consensus" if you think it's +2.06? What if it's +1.5? The real world is not binary, it's a matter of degree. Edit: For a list of things that people disagree on, you can look at the "How to talk to a climate sceptic" post, which regardless of whether you believe the responses or not is a pretty comprehensive list: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to...