The point isn't that "Moon is convinced", or is it your contention that when a layman cites a scientific article he rather than the scientist becomes responsible for the article's assertions and other content?
Your overall argument in substituting your own ideas for those of people who know what they're talking about - the scientists in this case, is in keeping with your typical ignorant behavior.
Science isn't 'experts'. It is not a degree, license, university, academy, society, government agency, study, research, paper, book, article, pamphlet, web site, scientist, or any group of scientists. It isn't even people at all. Science does not use supporting evidence (only religions do). Science does not use consensus (or peer review). It has no elite. It has no voting bloc of any kind. It is not data or numbers of any kind.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Scientists are people. Like anyone, they have religions, beliefs, paychecks (which mostly come from governments), and their own politics. Science is NONE of these. Expert worship is a false authority fallacy.
If a theory doesn't stand up to tests designed to destroy it, that theory is falsified. It is the only way to falsify a theory. As long as a theory can withstand tests designed to destroy it, that theory is automatically part of the body of science. No vote. No peer review (which is used by books and magazines). It makes no difference who created the theory or who falsifies it. The theory supports itself. Science makes NO use of supporting evidence. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
Science is atheistic. It doesn't care where there is a god, gods, or nothing at all. It simply doesn't go there. It allows for any one of these conditions.
Climate is not a science. The title 'climate scientist' is just another name for a priest in the Church of Global Warming. 'Climate' is a subjective word, describing an environment, such as a desert climate, a marine climate, etc. There is no global climate. Climate has no quantitative value. There is nothing to change. A desert climate will always be a desert climate. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. It matters not where a desert climate might be or where an marine climate might be.
Weather changes. It has quantitative values. Temperature can change, precip can change, wind speed and direction can change. There is no possibility to measure global temperature, global precip, the total snow and ice on Earth, there is no global wind speed or direction.
By discarding any argument simply by where it comes from, you are committing a fallacy known as Bulverism. By worshiping 'experts', you are also committing a fallacy known as a false authority fallacy.
Science isn't 'experts'.
Now to turn to the laws of thermodynamics that the Church of Global Warming ignores:
The 1st law of thermodynamics is E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy (or the potential to perform work), 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force applied over time).
This equation means that you cannot create energy out of nothing. It also means you cannot destroy energy into nothing. It can only be converted from one form to another.
The Church of Global Warming ignores this equation by attempting to increase the temperature of Earth (which requires additional energy) from a Magick Holy Gas, which is not energy.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or the randomness of a system), and 't' is time. In other words, you cannot decrease entropy in any given system. Ever.
The Church of Global Warming ignores this equation by attempting to trap thermal energy on the surface of Earth, leaving the upper atmosphere colder by use of a Magick Holy Gas. This is a reduction of entropy. Further, the Magick Holy Gas is in the atmosphere, which is colder (contains less energy) than the surface beneath it. This religion is literally trying to heat the surface using a colder gas. Not possible. The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and the direction it flows. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (essentially it converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is a measured constant on how well the surface both absorbs or radiates energy, expressed as a percentage between two ideals (the ideal black body, or perfect radiator; and the ideal white body, or perfect reflector). All real bodies, including Earth, have an emissivity somewhere between 0% and 100%. It is not possible to measure this value for Earth or any other planet. To do so, you first have to accurately know the temperature of the radiating surface and compare that to the ideal black body at the same temperature.
This means that 'r' is a wholly dependent variable, while 't' (in kelvins) is a wholly independent variable. 'C' and 'e' are both constants.
There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law can be synthesized from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light. In other words, ALL frequencies are combined together in this law.
The Church of Global Warming ignores this law by blocking infrared light from being radiated by the atmosphere, essentially 'trapping' light, claiming that visible light somehow heats the Earth, and cannot escape because Earth emits infrared light that is 'trapped' by a Magick Holy Gas.
Does CO2 absorb infrared light? Sure. It also radiates it. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas though, not even by heating by radiance. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies.
There is no sequence. There is no frequency term in any of these laws. They are no suspended for even a moment of time. They operate everywhere, all the time, and so far without fail, anywhere in the observable universe.
You can't just ignore these laws. You can't just arbitrarily change these laws. No theory is ever proven True, not even a theory of science, but you can't just discard a theory of science either.
