17 Jun '15 16:02>20 edits
Originally posted by Duncan ClarkeIts no longer a theory (I assume here you are referring to the greenhouse theory by "climate change" theory? There isn't one "climate change" theory but many unrelated ones ) and you are something like ~20 years or more out of date on that one. Basic physics (which I have formally studied at high university level ) had shown us scientists a long time ago that an increase in atmospheric CO2, whether from man made sources or natural, should cause measurable global warming and that it would be a huge scientific mystery if it didn't! In fact, if it didn't, we would have to through out much of known well-established proven physics including quantum physics (which tells us why we should think CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of infrared. This has also been directly empirically measured and tallies with quantum physics predictions ) and the laws of thermodynamic (because, for starters, we would have to conclude that the heat energy so absorbed either magically disappears or mysteriously magically transports itself out of the atmosphere in what should be a causally impossible way ).
" the "climate change" theory need to prove their case. .
If you don't believe me, I will be willing to spend the long time explaining that basic physics of that to you in fine detail (both the quantum physics aspects of it and the thermodynamic aspects of it and with web links references to both ) BUT ONLY IF, unlike Metal Brain, you have genuine scientific curiosity about this and completely honestly want to know (although he is now completely out of it anyway; hallucinating whole complex conversations that never took place and then accusing me of discontinuing them ). If so, I would try my best to avoid getting into the complex mathematics of it but I am afraid that would mean it wouldn't strictly be a 'complete' explanation -no avoiding that I am afraid.