Contrary to what you think, I have never expressed believe that climate science is understood nor can be modeled to an accuracy that has any meaning. I have no idea nor belief what the temperature or sea level will be in 50 or 100 years. However if someone wants to take a stance one way or the other, there is one precept that should not be embraced: bad, or misunderstood science.
It is amazing that someone who is so anti-science keeps yakking about science as though he understood it. Again your arguments are just a simple sulky lashing out. Poor petulant pale believes more in gut feel than in science or math. That is called,
Truthiness, a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
You prefer your gut feeling over solid proven mathematics of statistics.
You prefer your gut feeling that the CMB was never discovered.
You prefer your gut feeling of fantasy over the successes of quantum mechanics.
You prefer your gut feeling over the second law of thermodynamics and come to a conclusion that there is a black streak between light bulbs because the radiation cancels out
As far as back-radiation from atmospheric CO2, two of the most well-known outspoken critics of AGW are Dr Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts. Even these critics of the same thing you are critical of have stated that they think your understanding of thermodynamics is flat wrong.
Dr Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
… the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.
In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave....
Anthony Watts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/11/the-spencer-challenge-to-slayersprincipia/
Dr. Roy Spencer has made a challenge to the Slayers/Principia folks who keep insisting the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all. My view has always been that it exists. and has been effectively modeled as well as observed/measured (up to a point, so far I don’t know of a full scale measurement being done for the entire vertical column of the atmosphere), but likely isn’t the catastrophic issue portrayed by alarmists due to climate sensitivity likely being low.
You are the one who has given meaning to wacko.
