Maybe, however, even that is not so settled.
Could ‘the greenhouse effect’ be one of those things that everybody claims to understand because it is apparently so important, but in reality it is not supported by a credible scientific literature?
That's the view of Bill Kininmonth, meteorologist and head of Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998.
Furthermore, Mr Kininmonth is of the view that,"the role of greenhouse gases is to cool the atmosphere and this, with the surface warming from solar radiation, generates convective instability. It is the temperature lapse rate required for deep convection that leads to the ‘greenhouse effect’".
The post then goes on to explain the actual mechanism according to Bill. It's a bit technical for my tired mind to take in at present, but I shall re-read it tomorrow...
However, if even the greenhouse effect is open to question, what else might bear re-examination?