Be all of that as it may (or may not be), Vortex, the fact remains that none of us in this thread is qualified in this field, so we are all more or less appealing to authority. Sure, the authority may be (and often is, per LoneShaman's postings amongst others) in the form of "a presentation of facts", but none of us is qualified to assess whether that presentation is really presenting facts or misinformation. We are all to an extent fumbling around in the dark.
Here's a good example from a later post of LoneShaman's, which I won't quote in full:
The ultimate argument that LoneShaman seems to endorse in this post (which I haven't looked into carefully, including not having watched the full video) is what we might term "the saturation argument": that we are basically at the point where adding more CO2 isn't going to have any extra effect on retaining heat. He refers to an experiment by Newt Angstrom to back this up.
Great. Science. Detailed facts and arguments. Not an appeal to authority, right?
Well, let's look deeper, because I remembered having encountered a refutation of this argument before, and, sure enough, readily found that refutation:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Great. More science. More detailed facts and arguments (plus a neat video which seems to explain the science clearly). Not an appeal to authority either, right?
Nah. Let's be real. Neither LoneShaman nor I know enough in this domain to properly evaluate the merits of this argument and the counter-argument. But the one happens to coincide with the consensus of people who
do know enough, and the other doesn't, so... I know where my money's going on this one.