That guy you posted before, - the one who proved the Maunder Minimum never existed he's no longer operational? Half the stuff you've been posting contradicts the other half. Is that what you mean by no absolutes - no evidence of anything in particular? Everything contradicted by everything else and we agree to know nothing? Sure. Although the reference to relativity theory is a symptom of whack status, and the similarity is obviously distant, it's pretty well accepted that there is an upper bound to greenhouse heating via the gases at issue so far. So? That's almost irrelevant, unless he can show the upper bound is within some range of interest for human civilization - which he can't - or that the inability to run away to infinity means the warming rate cannot be accelerated by positive feedback over a temperature range of great significance to human life on this planet, which it doesn't. And so forth. As always: what is the argument?