[ChemicalWarfare]

>> You talk about a 4% yearly excess as if that was a small amount!

This analogy would only make sense if somehow this 4% wasn't spent or was spent differently than the rest of the money. Also don't forget we're talking .3% if you take all of the greenhouse gases into consideration.

>>...if you think computer models are junk, that discounts many of the positive feedbacks proposed, but also the negative feedbacks which would have to exist, to lead to zero warming.

This sounds like mental gymnastics trying to single out the evuuhl CO2. Given the fact that planet Earth went through multiple heating/cooling cycles way more severe than the current warming trend without any antropogenic influence, applying Occam's razor here would lead me to believe the issue lies elsewhere.