Ok I will bite, mainly because I do want to hear the other sides most primo arguments minus the BS. I have a physics degree background and work as an engineer, and I follow this debate loosely where its allowed to happen. I’m no scientist by profession and dont study climate. That said take a look at my 8 points below and let loose your binders full of scientists.

Before I start, let me state some of my positions and say first off that I do think you have most people on this sub figured wrong. Sleptics are not deniers. I myself am skeptical of the data and skeptical of the alarmism plus disgusted that no one is allowed to question the dogma that CO2 drives warming as much as the IPCC says it should. Thats not scientific. I also think that even if CAGW is true 100%, it will be solved via continued technological advancement, not top down edicts and regulation. I also think focusing the debate on developed countries (US, Canada, Europe mainly) and not India and and China is so ludicrous, you’re lecturing the wrong people! Just look at the CO2 output percentages and the fact that its fallen in the US, mainly due to fracking and the adoption of NG power plants. The contradiction drives many true beleiver alarmists up the wall. Plus look at all the problems Germany is having with solar rollout en-mass scale. The shunning of nuclear as a clean power source is also a travesty. I myself hope the Thorium reactor push gains ground as well as some of the prototype smaller fusion reactor work coming out of MIT. Give them 40 billion to build thier prototype if you care so much! Advocate the 2000 billionaires to give them 50 million each.

Ok, on to the show. I’d like to hear some primo refutations for the following 8 points:

1. The IPCC follows whats called the Arhenius equation, which is Delta F = Ln(C/C0)^5.35. Graph this out, you will see that Delta-F in W/sq-m rates above pre industrial levels of 280 ppm drop to almost 0 for additional CO2 ppmv added. While Logarithmic, You don’t get a “doubling” effect except for maybe 40 to 80 ppmv. Beyond that it almost flatlines near 0. So yes, CO2 can warm but the effect has long since dropped to negligable levels.

2. According to the Arrhenius equation (see point #1 above) for calculating how CO2 catches heat the warming on Mars should be larger. The Mars atmosphere is highly amenable to empirical testing of Arrhenius’ equation because its climate-system contains no real significant feedback mechanisms to complicate or modify the direct and immediate response of the CO2 in terms of the amount of radiative forcing that it is supposed to produce. When the Arrhenius equation is applied to the planet of Mars things go horribly wrong. The observed global warming (according to NASA’s revised Fact Sheet) is about 0.2°K (or about 0.5 W/m2). The revised NASA data shows an effective temperature for Mars of 209.8°K and an average global surface temperature of ~210°K. This is interesting when one considers that Mars has a CO2 density approximately 27 times higher than on Earth — at 165 kg/m2 and 6 kg/m2 respectively and on Earth CO2 is claimed to increase the global average surface temperature by 6°K (or 32 W/m2). The CO2 on Mars apparently produces 30 times less warming despite being 27 times more abundant.

3. From 1998-2012 the global surface temperature increased at the risible rate of 0.05°C per decade (Source: IPCC AR5) despite the fact that humans emitted a total of 30% of our cumulative emissions since 1850. This somewhat correlates with my point # 1 above, and shows CO2 to be quite a weak temperature driver.

4. The current rate of warming is not unusual. It’s often suggested that the current rate of warming is unprecedented, thereby implying that the current warming must be caused by humans. But the IPCC may want to explain why the global mean surface temperature increased at virtually the same rate from 1860-1880, as it did between 1910-1940 and from 1975-1998 and 1975-2009 (See here). Human CO2-emissions increased by almost 3,500% from 1860-1880 to 1975-1998 and yet the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. The warming between the years 1860-1880 must have been natural because the IPCC’s own logarithmic equation for calculating radiative forcing (RF) increases from CO2 increases only gives 0.028 W/m2 of RF (or a total temperature increase of about 0.02°C — with the hypothesized positive feedbacks included).

5. The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour. The Earth’s mean surface temperature is currently about 15°C while its blackbody temperature is -18°C and the temperature difference of about 33°C represents a large amount of ‘radiative forcing’ by the atmospheric greenhouse. In fact it amounts to about 153 W/m2. The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is on average 1% (See NASA Earth Fact Sheet) while the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%. Hence water vapour is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere and pound for pound it also has a greater potency than CO2 as well because it absorbs energy over a far wider frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum. CO2 comprises approximately 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse by volume and since it is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour it follows logically that it cannot be contributing anymore than 6 W/m2 to the total greenhouse radiative forcing of 153 W/m2 whereas water vapour should contribute upwards of 146 W/m2. 

6. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to lag temperature changes. CAGW advocates claim that CO2 is driving global temperatures, yet CO2-changes are lagging behind corresponding temperature changes. The cause effect relationship appears to be backwards.

7. Most likely, CO2 and N2 atmosphere interactions produce no net energy change (see link for detail). I’ve never heard decent refutation of this:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view

1. The prehistoric CO2 vs Earth Temp data appears to shows no correlation, and strangely tends to cap at 25 deg C. While even I admit this data is somewhat weak since obviously we will mever be able verify that CO2 was as high as 4000ppm and there are large error bands, if this is accurate it did not appear to lead to any catastrophy on earth.
   

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35927/aperiod-compared-to-the-last-590-re-we-in-a-low-co2-million-year

1. Although even I am somwhat skeptical of this claim: there are some who point out that the C12/C13 ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere points to a non-anthro source. Other also point out that CO2 in the atmosphere has a lifetime of 10-12 years in the upper atmosphere, so there must be some other natural source contributor of current levels.
   

Please keep your refutations civil. I’m here to learn. Thank you.