India scientists dismiss Einstein theories

CPT Jack Durish - Well, to be honest, I used to be the same way (withhold judgement until the evidence is in). However, I frequent science sites now that I have internet access and that is pretty much all I do anymore. When I am bored, I take classes (and do some research on occasion).

Like I said above, I recommend not getting information from anywhere but the journals themselves. Out of the thousands of studies I've read, only a small handful of authors have refused to respond to my requests for more information or clarification on a point, so the scientific community is actually very, very open about their studies and data. I highly recommend getting in touch with any author when you have questions. Some refer you to sites that explain their data clearly, and some are more personal.

If you have time, check out the classes you can take for free: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/

CPL James S. I have studied weather and climate academically though not as a physicist. I have read journals and listened to actual climatologists and never found even one who is aware of any replicable evidence supporting man-made climate change or that CO2 is a pollutant or significant green house gas. I have also seen factual analysis refuting claims that 97% of climatologists support these assertions. However, I have seen plenty of evidence that man-made climate change is a political artifact invented to control people through fear and supported by academics seeking government grants

CPT Jack Durish - for starters, to define pollutant you need to get two separate definitions, the legal one and the scientific one (start with United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) for the legal and wiki will suffice for the latter as applied to Climate or medicine, etc). CO2 can cause Hypercapnia in humans but can also be detrimental in plants dependent upon saturation (much like Iodine in humans).
As for replicable evidence for man made climate change, I can point you to a site or three with explanations and evidence because the studies are too numerous to consolidate and post when it's easier to just send a link, however, some people consider the site political (conspiracist ideation)
Lastly, regarding CO2 as a GHG: it's not just a GHG, it has a relationship with water vapor that causes a feedback exacerbating the warming. the CO2 does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures (Lacis et al).

Respectfully, it makes me question your sources if you're not reading about FACE or related studies regarding CO2. I highly recommend these courses: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/#cat=science&subcat=earthscience&spec

CPL James S. - There certainly is dispute. The moment someone says, 'the science is settled' I know they are full of it because by nature (pun intended), science is hardly ever settled.
There was no dispute that the earth was flat at one point.