The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

For the big one, go he

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf

and look at the graph at the top of page 21.

Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".

And those that are classified as medium level and below are also shown
as minor players.

Those classified as a high level of scientific understanding are CO2,
CH4, N2O and Halocarbons and about three fifths of that column
represents CO2.

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.

Not bad at all but it does rather destroy the last vestiges of your
credibility.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.

HTH

It did indeed. It shows how desperate you are to discredit global
warming that you would cite an item that makes such a strong case for
the greenhouse effect.

--
Roger Chapman