Latest IPCC Report on Global Warming

According to Cheryl Hogue, in the April 21 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the essence of the United Nations April 13 report on global warming is that the average global temperature must not increase above 2°C from preindustrial levels by the year 2100.
From there on, no consideration is given to normal changes in sunlight radiation received by Earth, as has been historically indicated through the various ice ages. In other words, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC} will talk only about global warming caused by miniscule changes concentrations and concentration changes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, when the major effect on global temperature is caused by other natural factors. There are such things as variations in the sun's radiation output over many years, distances of the Earth from the sun, and several more known and many unknown factors. The IPCC mentions only that a decrease in the sun's radiation could reduce global warming, but the IPCC considers this an impossible task at this time. Therefore, the only action that man can take at the present time is to control carbon dioxide emissions, which affect I have already said is miniscule.
Greenhouse gases are necessary for continued life on Earth. Nitrogen at 78%, oxygen at 21% and carbon dioxide at 0.05% all make a contribution. Obviously, those gases in greater concentration, such as nitrogen and oxygen have much more significant effect on a greenhouse effect than does a minor gas such as carbon dioxide.
However to push the carbon dioxide emission control agenda, it has been necessary for pseudoscientists to develop a gobbledygook technique, which basically attributes magical properties to carbon dioxide. They call this magical property "forcing" and have developed mathematical formulas to prove it, in an unjustifiable way.
"Forcing" as a word seems to have no relation to the pseudoscientists' basic idea, in which carbon dioxide is a perfect absorber of heat on a temporary basis and a perfect reliberator of heat. An infinite amount of heat radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed completely by carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, and then released later back to Earth as heat. In other words carbon dioxide is a perfect insulator in the atmosphere. It will allow no loss of heat to the stratosphere. However, since we know that nights are colder than days, there must be some loss of heat to the stratosphere. That loss is only because of the relatively small concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even though it is the perfect insulator, or perhaps it may not be so perfect as an insulator.
What's wrong with the "Forcing" theory? Plenty! Start with the fact that there is no laboratory data to show that a quantity of carbon dioxide will not allow the passage of heat. In fact, the properties of gases listed in the Air Encyclopedia of Air Liquide show that while carbon dioxide is twice as good a heat insulator as oxygen and nitrogen, it is by no means the perfect insulator. In comparison, while a cup of coffee will still be hot after an hour of being in a thermos bottle, it will be cold a week later. A thermos bottle is a good insulator but not perfect. Carbon dioxide is a better insulator than nitrogen and oxygen, but if you have only an insignificant concentration (0.05% in the atmosphere), it doesn't do much insulating.
It is Interesting to me that these relatively simple concepts and facts are easily discussable without the use of high-powered mathematics, which only tend to intimidate the uninitiated and cloud understanding the natural laws of heat transmission. Even more interesting, is the fact that while I have opened myself to discussion on these points over a few years of email and blog presentations, no scientist has been willing to engage in the discussion. It's very much like Benghazi. We did the right thing and we won't talk about it. Or, the National Security Agency's collection of personal telephone data. We are doing the right thing and will not talk about it. That sort of attitude may have passed many years ago, but in the present age of communication ease, it is only apparent that the nonresponders are only afraid to respond for fear that their position will be jeopardized.