Yes it is. When you put forward a theory that violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, it is enough to point out that you don't know what you are talking about.
Then clearly you aren't a scientist.
If you were a scientst you wouldn't believe that one must have an alternate theory in order to prove a theory invalid. Agw is in violation of physical laws, it is enough to point that out.
Except for the fact that there is no mechanism by which a gas can absorb and retain heat and the fact that once a packet of IR is absorbed and emitted by a CO2 molecule, that packet, from that point forward, is invisible to CO2, and the fact that emitted IR can not be absorbed by the original heat sorce and further warmed.
Except for the fact that the above mentioned render the hypothes of agw null, I suppose I haven't provided anything.
Still making claims that you can't support. If it is having an effect, lets see the hard, observed, testable, repeatable data. So far all you have is the result of piss poor computer simulations.
