I disagree but in even that would refute Karjala's position which is one side is completely right and the other side is not. I would not agree with either of your quoted statements above either. For an example of what I'm talking about if one looks at those who claim CO2 is the main problem many/most/all of them postulate a half life of CO2 in the atmosphere of something in excess of 20 years and some use over 30 years in their models. On the otherhand I've seen several what at least appear to me to be strong cases for the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere being something less than 10 (I recall it being around 6 or 7) years. This has a huge impact but those who promote the importance of CO2 in global warming have not attempted to refute those studies they simply ignore them. There's also a tendency for the CO2 proponents to ascribe anyone who suggest that there's a decent case to be made for global warming as agreeing with them which is clearly not the case.