Well we can test in the lab that CO2 will absorb infra-red radiation at a very high rate, due to the presence of two C=O bonds (http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~webspectra/irtable.html). If temperature continued to go up while CO2 levels went down the hypothesis would be false.

That is an interesting blog post, I don't have the time to run through all the math right now, but a quick calc tells me that Earth receives 47% of the thermal radiation of Venus, and emits 58% of the radiation Venus does. (Just playing with the numbers in his post and the relative sizes of the planet.) I'll look at it again when I have more time and give you a better answer.

http://www.epic.noaa.gov/epic/...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools...
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM...

Some data: http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/

Some background info:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ccmac-cccm...
http://www.climateprediction.n...
http://www.climate.uvic.ca/
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/techni...

This one has videos: http://vimeo.com/user12523377/...

In this age of information, ignorance is a choice.

There is a shitload of data available for anyone to look at. Here is one good source, there are hundreds of others. You are just trying to find excuses to be ignorant.

If they went in opposite directions that would completely falsify it, especially since the "central conceit[sic]" is that an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature. The one proposed by Fourier in 1824 and has agreed with pretty much every study since then.

Do you expect scientists to be able to pick a model and have it match the real world completely and immediately? Do you expect that there can't be anything they didn't think of the first time they sat down? Science gets refined with time, if observations don't match theories, those theories are rejected and new ones are put in their place. This is exactly what has been happening with climate science for the last 40 years.

Also: I'm not sure if you typo'd "concept", if you're unclear on the meaning of the word "conceit" or if you mean it as an insult. Please clarify.

Play the ball, not the man. Yes, volcanoes do affect climate, so do solar cycles, but these are accounted for in the models. The results of the models are still very close to what we've been observing.

I'd say both, really. I realise that having a lot of people think something doesn't make it right, but if you show your idea to enough people, at some point you start to think that all the holes must have been found by at least one of the eyes that looked at it.

The process is very transparent. Even with the whole "climategate" bullshit a few years ago, there was nothing that wasn't open and honest apart from a couple of informal emails using words that the MSM didn't like. To be accepted to a science journal or conference you need to be doing science, not just spouting a conspiracy theory.

Politics are shit. Anything politics gets into, whether it's office politics, politics in sport or national politics, the fact that it exists will be a drag on what you want to achieve. That doesn't mean that the underlying thing stops being important. Your job isn't meaningless because your manager is trying to get himself more power. Sport isn't less fun because a player went to another team for a bullshit reason. Just like carbon dioxide won't magically change it's IR spectrum because some greedy politicians are sticking their noses in.

How is it not falsifiable? If the measured temperature was different from what the model predicted then we'd decide that model is no good and throw it out. Look at the graphs here. The yellow and blue lines are ridiculous, so those models have been falsified. The models trending with the temperatures are still considered to be good. Weather patterns that we know about and can monitor and account for are not "ad hoc special pleading." They are part of what's required to model temperatures.

That's exactly what they do. https://www.skepticalscience.c... What did you think they were doing?

There's more money in predicting basketball scores, if they were looking for the money there are many easier ways to get it.

What would if take to convince you that it's real?

Didn't they do a trial of that and found that it really didn't do anything? Marine animals came out and ate the algae, converting it all back to CO2.

Their response was to release a whole load of data. Your response to that was to come back and say that it wasn't enough. They did a bunch more studies and found the same thing over and over again, and you clearly think that it's still not enough.

Don't blindly accept anyone's word for anything. It isn't the easiest thing in the world to understand, but having more people who do understand it will let us make sure we're doing the right thing.

There will always be shysters. Did bridges become a ridiculous concept when the Brooklyn Bridge was "sold" or do people just need to be a little bit more careful?

For $10 a month you don't get everything you've ever wanted. That's like going to McDonalds and complaining about the lack of lobster on the menu.

The probability of me breaking my arm last year are 0, but the insurance company still wants me to pay them. It's a complete injustice.

Now that I see you do know what you're talking about, I apologise for insulting you in reply to your other comment.

You need either a materials science class or a reading class...

Diamonds are not tough in that they can be crushed and they do not appreciably deform.
Anvils are tough in that they can be repeatedly hit with a hammer, which will create dents etc. but will not fracture the metal.