I've never heard of the Beer-Lambert Law. I have a sometimes-vague layman's understanding of the others. (I don't see the relevance of several of them to the climate issue.) Do I think that any of them are wrong? No, not really. While I'm not up to speed on whatever evidence and scientific justification support these various principles, I'm prepared to accept all of them provisionally, on faith. I'm not in any position to follow the minute technical details whatever arguments are being made using these principles. Nor do I have access to the raw data-sets upon which the arguments are being applied. I'm certainly not in any position to critically evaluate the arguments so as to identify any errors or unjustified assumptions that might be present in them. (False assumptions are often unstated and implicit and not that easy to see, even for specialists.) Which leaves laypeople like myself in the position of either accepting or rejecting whatever the conclusions of the arguments are supposed to be, based largely on the strength of our faith in science and scientists. My point in this thread is that when an ostensibly scientific issue becomes as politicized as global warming has become, and when thoughtful dispassionate discussion of the issues turns into hysterical and frankly bizarre ad-hominem denunciations of what are perceived as evil heretics, one's faith in the objectivity and credibility of the process isn't enhanced.