I’m not going to argue about the science, the effect of CO2 on atmospheric radiative characteristics is well documented.
But when it gets into the effect of those changes on climate, there are still far more unanswered questions than answered.
Connolley’s efforts to skew the issues and presentation of the scientific debate with smears and lies against skeptics in Wikipedia are very similar to the efforts of “Philip Cross” mentioned in the original article.
In each case, IMO, it demonstrates that they really don’t believe they have a solid case. Which, IMO, they don’t
Nobody even knows whether “equilibrium climate sensitivity” or “transient climate response” are anything more than myths.
Of course, personally I think some precautions are in order, as long as they’re relatively cheap. Which, IMO, they could be.