> If the question is, what is the primary cause of the modern differential in the warming of the globe, there's a different answer. This seemed to imply that y

> If the question is, what is the primary cause of the modern differential in the warming of the globe, there's a different answer. This seemed to imply that you aren't disputing the answer, based on that definition of global warming which, again, is what the comment you replied to asserts is the definition. But from this comment, it seems to me that you're smuggling a disagreement about the science into a more pedantic point about what "global warming" is defined to mean. For what it's worth, as someone who believes that it's as close to a certainty as science ever gets that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causal, I am also uncomfortable with the certainty implied by the wording of the question. I would be happier if it were something like, "What is the consensus among climate scientists on which gas is the primary contributor to the warming climate we see today?".