One of the problems I have had with the catastrophic greenhouse gas hypothesis is that there has never been a "runaway" increasing temperature of earth even though the amount of CO2 has been significantly higher thousands of years ago than it is now. Philosophically it seems unlikely that all feedbacks associated with increased temperature due to greenhouse gases would be positive. There have been a lot of scientists who have argued that the accepted theory violated the second law of thermodynamics, and that basic heat balance would not be satisfied. There has been recent work at UAH that indicates that there are not more high altitude clouds as the amount of water vapor in the air increases, and that the clouds do not persist as long as has been assumed in the Global Circulation Models. Thus high altitude clouds do not produce a positive feedback, and at worst the effect may be neutral. It is obvious from the recent temperature history that the GCMs overestimate the mean temperature increase, but the proponents of the global warming hypothesis do not acknowledge the facts. As stated in the following article, the $5 billion per year the global warmers for their research is a good reason for ignoring the evidence. (It is curious that the people who believe the catastrophic global warming hypothesis say that the "deniers" are supported by "big oil" even though there is no record of significant funding going to the "deniers." In fact, the "deniers" often lose their job or leave due to institutional pressure as the Zagoni did.) The comment by Reto Ruedy in the article that the greenhouse gas equations are 200 years old is pretty funny. I don't think Einstein worried about Newton's gravitation law being over 200years old. Here is the article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm