On Earth Day, shots fired at building housing leading climate skeptic scientists

Reallyskeptical, you even have a “protesteth too much” nick name, like the very undemocratic ‘Deutsches Democratic Republic. Occam’s razor: 70yds, 7 shots with a light bullet all slammed into the 4th floor of a building where one of the most prominent public CAGW sceptics works along the parade route of zealous angry CAGW proponents. You do the math for homework.

Okay, Alan, a few questions, then: First, disprove the physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave (IR) radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Second, please explain how it’s meaningless that that warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in, say, the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can’t account for the same global temperature rises.
Third, challenge and refute all of the easily correlated temperature measurements from a wide range of independent global sources — many using different data-analytical techniques (good overview here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/) — such as those by NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more.
My central point, however, is not whether AGW is verifiable or not — what I’m talking about is that civility should rule our disagreements. Calling my thoughts “nonsense from beginning to end,” you must admit, doesn’t help foster an environment of collegial discussion.

1) That there is a greenhouse effect from certain atmospheric molecules is generally recognized, although the science even on that point is far from “settled”, whatever that means.
However, the slight effect of more CO2 determined in the lab hasn’t been observed in nature. For one thing, we don’t even know what all carbon sinks are. The world has responded to more plant food in the air by greening, as is to be expected.
IPCC assumes net highly positive feedback effects, which aren’t in evidence. The best observations suggest that feedback from water vapor and other effects in the highly complex climate system up climate sensitivity from the lab’s 1.2 degrees C per doubling to perhaps 1.6 degrees, a far cry from IPCC’s central value of 3.0 degrees C, let alone its high end of the range, 4.5 degrees C. The range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C hasn’t been refined since 1979, when it was derived by averaging two guesses and attaching an arbitrary margin of error.
For all anyone knows, net feedbacks might well be negative.
2) Whatever warming actually has been observed in the past century does not even come close to correlating, smoothly or otherwise, with the supposedly observed rise in CO2. Quite the contrary. Earth has cooled, warmed and stayed about the same temperature under rising CO2. There is no correlation.
From around the end of WWI to the start of WWII, ie in the 1920s and ’30s, earth warmed as CO2 fluctuated. The early 20th century warming is scarcely distinguishable from the late 20th century warming. Then after WWII, CO2 rose steadily but the planet cooled dramatically. Indeed, to such a degree that in the 1970s scientists feared a return to ice age conditions. But the PDO flipped in 1977 and earth began warming again. For the next 20 years, increasing CO2 and temperatures accidentally correlated. But then, from the 1990s, GASTA stayed the same while CO2 rose even more rapidly.
On geologic timeframes, there is also no correlation, except to note that warmer oceans release more CO2, ie higher carbon dioxide is an effect of a warming world, not a cause.
3) The so-called “surface data sets” are works of science fantasy. They are not science and cannot pass statistical muster. They are adjusted beyond all recognition without justification. The satellite and balloon records are better, but only go back to the middle of 20th century.
The GIGO computer models are worse than worthless exercises in special pleading. The assumptions behind them aren’t physical or based upon observation. They ignore or downplay important climatic phenomena, such as clouds.
According to the GHE hypothesis, the air should warm first and the surface thereafter. Just the opposite has happened. The predicted tropical tropospheric hotspot is not in evidence.
The AGW hypothesis was thus born falsified and has repeatedly been so anew. Without AGW, there can be no catastrophic man-made global warming. Hence, no worries. More CO2 has been a good thing so far and more would be even better. Best of all would be a tripling to 1200 ppm, ie the level maintained in real greenhouses, to raise healthy and happy plants.