How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[BoyintheMachine]

I know you think you have a 'Gotcha!' with this - but the fact is, your floating this is a dead give-away that your grasp of the science is very limited. You have to be able to use abstract reasoning. Critical thinking is always a handy devise, but scientific thinking moves in regions a bit more rarefied than the lower cognitive mind.

Again, just a random google - please note the graph in the following link - "This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution." Also, it shows that the level of CO2 has climbed since 1950 to levels never before seen. Why is this important? Because: "The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

LINK: Climate Change: Evidence

Text: "The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

"Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

"Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

• The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
• Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands."

PLEASE NOTE: "Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels."

Where are you getting your information? You make statements as though you are stating facts but you do not back them up. You grumble about Mike - well, he's doing his due diligence - supplying factual back-up to his views. You, I fear, are doing nothing but spouting random stuff you've heard or read. Care to post the links to the evidence you are using?

ROTFLMAO!

Seriously, it's like you are not even ready my replies. No body is disputing that CO2 levels are rising. What is in dispute is that CO2 is causing global warming.

This is the stance of AGW proponents:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Man is producing tons of CO2 a year. Therefor the earth is heating up and man is to blame.

The problems with this theory:

1. It assumes the earth's climate is extremely simple when in fact the earth's climate is incredibly complex.

2. It does not take into account that the earth is a self-regulating system and that there are processes that diminish or even cancel out the effects. For example, one process that regulation CO2 is plants. When CO2 levels rise more plants grow. More living plants remove more CO2 from the air and thus CO2 levels drop.

3. Why is CO2 being targeted when it is among the least strong greenhouse gas? Why aren't people focused on cow farts because methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is? Probably because there's not a lot a money in it. The money is in blaming human industrialization.

3. Why CO2 was never behind any warming of the earth's past history? This one right here is the one you people seem to keep on ignoring. Rising CO2 levels in the past have never been linked to global warming. Never. Not once. In fact, it's the opposite that has been shown to be true, that the global temperature rises first and then CO2 levels peak. If AGW is true the we should see CO2 levels peak and then global temperatures peak. We don't see this. Thus the entire premise of AGW falls apart. Now matter how many times I say this you people keep on ignoring it.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Perhaps you're new around here but you have no idea just how ridiculous that statement actually is.

Btw I find most of your statements around life on planet earth and the ecosystems that sustain those lives to be entirely anti-planet. Much of it, whether you realize it or not, is the conservative corporate voice that says, "Everything's fine, nothing to worry about around here. Don't worry about those species dying over there. You know, that kind of talk is just fear and paranoia. And those tree huggers like Cousteau, Suzuki and Goodall - a bunch of schmucks!" That's the voice that is the prelude to green lighting the continued industrial exploitation of any consumable resource no matter the ecological cost, the one cost capitalism is apparently blind to. Your voice on this topic promotes sightlessness.

That talk, along with talk about how AGW is all poppycock, is actually a conspiracist, pro-oncelor and mostly rhetorical voice as you continue to demonstrate. Maybe you didn't watch The Lorax in grade 5?

Mike doesn't research!? Sheesh! He's probably the heaviest lifter out here, and been lifting for a very long time if you hadn't noticed. If you keep up this challenge he'll hit 6,000 posts before May's finished.

*my goodness how this topic brings out the ire and disbelief pudding*

I'm anti-planet? No, sir. I'm not anti-planet. I'm anti-b.s. and I'm sick and tired of you anti-science and anti-rational thinking/anti-critical thinking people trying to push a fraud onto the world that will end up hurting the U.S. economy while making billions for the people at the top of this scheme.

What Mike is doing is called "bombardment", as in keep on throwing out so much information that people can't possible go back and check it. He's trying to confuse you and get you to the point where you simply suspend your rational mind and critical thinking processes.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Does anyone posting about a "hoax/conspiracy" have a degree in the field being discussed? If not you have zero credibility. If so, please point to the research you've published in reputable scientific journals.

1. Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Authority (look it up)

2. There are people with degrees and real scientists who disagree with AGW.

3. You are being hypocritical. You are arguing that people who disagree have to have degrees while people who support AGW do not.

Nice try.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

The earth's average global temperature has not risen in 17 years. The last time the earth's average global temperature rose was in 1997. We are in a cooling trend. This cooling trend was not predicted by AGW proponents. When it was shown that the earth was now in a cooling period they put their spin on it and labeled it a "Global Warming Pause". LOL

This is not the first cooling trend we've experienced. From 1940-1975 the earth was in another cooling trend. Ironically, at that time scientists were saying the earth was going to freeze and we would soon enter an ice age. They called it "Global Cooling". However, in 1975 the earth's average global temperature began to rise and scientists abandoned "Global Cooling'. So my question to you is, if they abandoned Global Cooling because the earth began to warm, why aren't they abandoning Global Warming now that the earth is cooling?

The truth is this is a big sign that everything is wrong. In fact, the evidence indicates that the earth's climates oscillates back and forth between cooling and warming periods. What seems to be the case is that these cooler periods tend to last longer and longer as the earth heads into an ice age. When the warming periods tend to last longer than the cooler periods the earth comes out of an ice age. Believe it or not, we are currently working towards an ice age. Our cooling periods are lasting longer than our warming periods. This current cooling period is believed could last for another 40 years. Some Russian scientists believe it could last another 250 years, but I can't vouch for that as I've not gone over their research.

At no time in earth's history has CO2 been the driving force behind climate. Likewise, it's safe to assume that it doesn't play such role today. Whatever is happening today is most likely not connected with human activity and instead reflects the behaviors of a very complex, self-regulating system acting over incredibly long periods of time.

*****NOTE: The earth's next ice age should occur in about 50,000 years. That's next week on a geographical time scale. By then glaciers will form and could cover most of North America, going as far south as Texas, as that's how far they've been in the past ice ages.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Before "Global Warming" there was "Global Cooling!"

Technically we are on our way to the next ice age. It has nothing to do with mankind and there's no way to stop it. All we can do is to adapt to it or else go extinct.

 

[Paleontologist]

ROTFLMAO!
Rising CO2 levels in the past have never been linked to global warming. Never. Not once. In fact, it's the opposite that has been shown to be true, that the global temperature rises first and then CO2 levels peak. If AGW is true the we should see CO2 levels peak and then global temperatures peak. We don't see this. Thus the entire premise of AGW falls apart. Now matter how many times I say this you people keep on ignoring it.

You've now said this, or a variation of it, several times. You're dead wrong: Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Although you're not much for the Argument From Authority (or your caricature of it), I can assure you as an Earth Scientist that carbon dioxide plays a strong role in the regulation of global temperatures. It is not the only factor, of course, but changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere have always had significant climate effects. I suggest you leave geological history out of your bag of arguments.

 

[Burnt State]

I'm sick and tired of you anti-science and anti-rational thinking/anti-critical thinking people trying to push a fraud onto the world that will end up hurting the U.S. economy while making billions for the people at the top of this scheme.

Could you please explain how this "fraud" will end up making billions in the supposed climate change pyramid scheme? Who is the mystery person at the top - please don't say Al Gore.

While you're at it please cost estimate clean air, clean water, clean soil etc…

p.s. i also find Mike to be an entirely rational and coherent poster here. while he may drop the occasional motherload of information on threads, it's not junk and always reasonable, informative material.

 

[mike]

push a fraud onto the world that will end up hurting the U.S. economy while making billions for the people at the top of this scheme.

The fact that you didnt even understand that overpopulation cannot be measured as a headcount, a magical number of people, is no doubt the factor that causes you to think the issue is a fraud.

10 hills tribesmen in papua new guinea dont have the same carbon footprint of ecological drain as 1 person living in sydney australia.

Overpopulation simply cannot be expressed as a headcount, a number of people. That you doggedly insist it must be shows how little you understand.
Your perception that its fraud, is born of your ignorance, not reality.

The fact that you could not understand what this graphic means another example

If the rest of the world used the same resources as the US at the rate they use it, we would need 4.16 earths to do so at a sustainable level.

Your economy is based on debt and deficit, not just on a fiscal level, but also an environmental level

You continue to bleat there is no problem, yet scientific consensus says there is

The Problem
The world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion. Within the span of a single lifetime, world population has more than doubled to 5.5 billion and even the most optimistic scenarios of lower birth rates lead to a peak of 7.8 billion people in the middle of the next century. In the last decade, food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth.
The relationships between human population, economic development and natural environment are complex and not fully understood. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion and acid rain, loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, shortages of water, food and fuel indicate how the natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.
The developed world, containing less than a quarter of the world population, accounts for 85% of the gross world production and the majority of the mineral and fossil-fuel consumption. Both rich and poor countries add to environmental damage through industrial activity, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration and inadequate and inattentive environmental concern.

IAP - IAP Statement on Population Growth

another report saying the same thing

August 20 is Earth Overshoot Day 2013, marking the date when humanity exhausted nature’s budget for the year. We are now operating in overdraft. For the rest of the year, we will maintain our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Just as a bank statement tracks income against expenditures, Global Footprint Network measures humanity’s demand for and supply of natural resources and ecological services. And the data is sobering. Global Footprint Network estimates that in approximately eight months, we demand more renewable resources and C02 sequestration than what the planet can provide for an entire year.

and another

Mankind is draining the earth's resources so quickly the globe would be bled dry before the end of the century at this rate, a new report shows.
Humans are living outside their means, depleting natural resources like forests, air and water 50% faster than the planet can renew, according to the 2012 World Wildlife Fund's "Living Planet Report" released this month.
If the trends aren't reversed, by 2030 we’d need more than two Planet Earths to sustain human activity, according to the study.
“If we just do business as usual…we’re just going to continue moving in this direction. At some point, the earth’s going to just give out

But dont worry folks this is all BS, there is no problem

Extinction rates 100 times the background rate due to habitat destruction........No problem

Deforestation at insane levels (Human activity is responsible for the loss of around half of the forests that once covered the Earth. Although these can recover and can even be sustainably harvested, their rate of loss is about ten times higher than the rate of regrowth.).......No problem

• Logging and conversion have shrunk the world's forests by as much as half.

• Some 9 percent of the world's tree species are at risk of extinction; tropical deforestation may exceed 130,000 square kilometers per year.

• Fishing fleets are 40 percent larger than the ocean can sustain.

• Nearly 70 percent of the world's major marine fish stocks are overfished or are being fished at their biological limit.

• Soil degradation has affected two-thirds of the world's agricultural lands in the last 50 years.

• Some 30 percent of the world's original forests have been converted to agriculture.

• Since 1980, the global economy has tripled in size and population has grown by 30 percent to 6 billion people.

• Dams, diversions or canals fragment almost 60 percent of the world's largest rivers.

• Twenty percent of the world's freshwater fish are extinct, threatened or endangered.

• 
  No problem.........

• 
  Your claim of "no problem" is the real example of lack of critical thinking seen in this debate, The measurable evidence is clear

We are living on what can be likened to a very large spaceship. It is finite. It's floating in space. And we must depend on it for everything we need to live. If we foul it up or run out of something we can't run next door or call for take-out.

We haven't been taking good enough care of our spaceship; it's clear from the news and the scientific reports. It's time we get our act together to avoid a crash. Fasten your seatbelt, watch the passenger safety briefing, share it widely, and then get busy taking good care of her! Learn more at http://www.growthbusters.org

 

[mike]

Its telling that he mentions the economy.........

 

[mike]

This is how you measure overpopulation

Its not about how many people, its about how much resources they consume, and the planets ability to renew those resources

 

[marduk]

ROTFLMAO!

Seriously, it's like you are not even ready my replies. No body is disputing that CO2 levels are rising. What is in dispute is that CO2 is causing global warming.

This is the stance of AGW proponents:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Man is producing tons of CO2 a year. Therefor the earth is heating up and man is to blame.

The problems with this theory:

1. It assumes the earth's climate is extremely simple when in fact the earth's climate is incredibly complex.

2. It does not take into account that the earth is a self-regulating system and that there are processes that diminish or even cancel out the effects. For example, one process that regulation CO2 is plants. When CO2 levels rise more plants grow. More living plants remove more CO2 from the air and thus CO2 levels drop.

3. Why is CO2 being targeted when it is among the least strong greenhouse gas? Why aren't people focused on cow farts because methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is? Probably because there's not a lot a money in it. The money is in blaming human industrialization.

3. Why CO2 was never behind any warming of the earth's past history? This one right here is the one you people seem to keep on ignoring. Rising CO2 levels in the past have never been linked to global warming. Never. Not once. In fact, it's the opposite that has been shown to be true, that the global temperature rises first and then CO2 levels peak. If AGW is true the we should see CO2 levels peak and then global temperatures peak. We don't see this. Thus the entire premise of AGW falls apart. Now matter how many times I say this you people keep on ignoring it.

You might want to take that conversation up with Earth's "twin" planet Venus, which is primarily CO2.

I'm NOT saying that mankind's industrial revolution will trigger a runaway CO2 process like Venus, but if you think CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I don't know what to say...

Plus the whole CO2->more plants debate works great when there aren't humans around taking down most of the biomass in the name of food, and polluting the ocean causing massive die-offs in the primary consumer of CO2: algae.

Didn't you wonder what was causing the massive de-oxygenation of large parts of the ocean? Dead algae.

Waving your arms in the air saying "it's complex" (even if it's true) doesn't change the fact that we are altering the atmosphere with stuff that will probably warm it up. At the rate of dozens of volcanoes or so per year.

We know volcanic activity has been tied to climate changes in the past... generally regarding warmer periods than now. Choosing to keep going in this direction likely isn't a great idea for a species with most of it's population density on the coastline.

The fact is that the Earth's ecology has shook off far larger ecological collapses than we are still likely to be capable of.

The fact that nature will recover doesn't mean our society will. That's what's at stake.

And the other fact of the matter is that until we get off this rock we need to understand how to manipulate the planetary atmosphere and ecology so we would continue to survive even if 1000 volcanoes all went off at once. Or an asteroid impact threw enough dust to block the sun. Or whatever.

 

[marduk]

This is how you measure overpopulation

Its not about how many people, its about how much resources they consume, and the planets ability to renew those resources

Through technology we've taken a planet that should have been capable of sustaining 3-5 billion humans to one that could probably sustain 20.

Not that much else except humanity would survive, of course.

Besides, nature has a way of correcting such overpopulation issues...

The average man has less than half the motile sperm now than the average man 100 years ago. This has no sign of stopping.

Human mortality rate is significantly reduced by the use of antibiotics. Which are rapidly showing signs of becoming useless due to overuse.

Industrialized societies tend to have smaller (or no) children.

Human population is expected to stabilize at about 9-12 billion by many. And then decline. On it's own.

Wars/outbreaks/asteroids/etc not included.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

You've now said this, or a variation of it, several times. You're dead wrong: Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Although you're not much for the Argument From Authority (or your caricature of it), I can assure you as an Earth Scientist that carbon dioxide plays a strong role in the regulation of global temperatures. It is not the only factor, of course, but changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere have always had significant climate effects. I suggest you leave geological history out of your bag of arguments.

I suggest you leave geological history out of your bag of arguments.

There you people go again trying to make it look like that past doesn't matter. Sure. it doesn't matter that CO2 was never the driving force behind climate in the past. So let's all just ignore that past and only focus on the present and pretend that CO2 now is the driving force of climate.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Could you please explain how this "fraud" will end up making billions in the supposed climate change pyramid scheme? Who is the mystery person at the top - please don't say Al Gore.

While you're at it please cost estimate clean air, clean water, clean soil etc…

p.s. i also find Mike to be an entirely rational and coherent poster here. while he may drop the occasional motherload of information on threads, it's not junk and always reasonable, informative material.

As long as you only research the pro-AGW camp you will continue to remain ignorant. Just saying. I'm just shocked at the level of scientific ignorance openly displayed and celebrated on this thread.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

You might want to take that conversation up with Earth's "twin" planet Venus, which is primarily CO2.

I'm NOT saying that mankind's industrial revolution will trigger a runaway CO2 process like Venus, but if you think CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I don't know what to say...

Plus the whole CO2->more plants debate works great when there aren't humans around taking down most of the biomass in the name of food, and polluting the ocean causing massive die-offs in the primary consumer of CO2: algae.

Didn't you wonder what was causing the massive de-oxygenation of large parts of the ocean? Dead algae.

Waving your arms in the air saying "it's complex" (even if it's true) doesn't change the fact that we are altering the atmosphere with stuff that will probably warm it up. At the rate of dozens of volcanoes or so per year.

We know volcanic activity has been tied to climate changes in the past... generally regarding warmer periods than now. Choosing to keep going in this direction likely isn't a great idea for a species with most of it's population density on the coastline.

The fact is that the Earth's ecology has shook off far larger ecological collapses than we are still likely to be capable of.

The fact that nature will recover doesn't mean our society will. That's what's at stake.

And the other fact of the matter is that until we get off this rock we need to understand how to manipulate the planetary atmosphere and ecology so we would continue to survive even if 1000 volcanoes all went off at once. Or an asteroid impact threw enough dust to block the sun. Or whatever.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's talk about VENUS.

Let's talk about how all the human industry on Venus has caused this greenhouse effect and destroyed the planet.

Let's spend hours talking about this, shall we?


FYI: Venus' greenhouse effect was not caused by CO2. Instead, the accepted theory states that Venus had oceans similar to Earth. However, because it is closer to the Sun than the Earth is, it is hotter than the Earth. With time it's oceans evaporated. When water evaporates it turns into water vapor. Water Vapor is the most powerful Greenhouse Gas. It's to blame for 90% of all Global Warming. As more water evaporated, the temperatures rose. A the temperatures rose, even more water evaporated. This led to a run-away greenhouse effect. The water vapor in the atmosphere was then, with time, split into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen escaped into space. Today, Venus is almost bone-dry.

 

[Paleontologist]

There you people go again trying to make it look like that past doesn't matter. Sure. it doesn't matter that CO2 was never the driving force behind climate in the past. So let's all just ignore that past and only focus on the present and pretend that CO2 now is the driving force of climate.

Really? THIS is your answer? That a geologist and others on this thread are ignoring the past? Have you not read the responses to your posts? Clearly you can now be safely ignored.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Through technology we've taken a planet that should have been capable of sustaining 3-5 billion humans to one that could probably sustain 20.

Not that much else except humanity would survive, of course.

Besides, nature has a way of correcting such overpopulation issues...

The average man has less than half the motile sperm now than the average man 100 years ago. This has no sign of stopping.

Human mortality rate is significantly reduced by the use of antibiotics. Which are rapidly showing signs of becoming useless due to overuse.

Industrialized societies tend to have smaller (or no) children.

Human population is expected to stabilize at about 9-12 billion by many. And then decline. On it's own.

Wars/outbreaks/asteroids/etc not included.

The site, overpopulation is a myth, has a video that I posted here that stated that the worlds's population of human beings could fit within a land mass the size of Texas, with every family having their own home. I think the problem is that people don't understand how big the earth is.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Really? THIS is your answer? That a geologist and others on this thread are ignoring the past? Have you not read the responses to your posts? Clearly you can now be safely ignored.

The wool is being pulled over your eyes and you want to ignore me. CO2 lags behind temperature but you want to ignore me.

New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most” | Watts Up With That?

CO2 lags behind Temperature
CO2 lags behind Temperature
CO2 lags behind Temperature

How many time must I repeat that the whole pro-AGW theory just falls apart because temperatures rises first and then CO2 levels rise.

For those who still can't figure out what I'm talking about, it's this:

You uncook and unscramble an egg, put it back in it's shell and uncrack it and put it away in your fridge.

This is the story you have been sold by the pro-AGW camp. They want you to believe that the sequential reverse of what is occurring is happening, that CO2 rises first and then this causes temperature to rise. However, the truth of the matter is that temperature rises first and then CO2 levels rise. So how the hell can CO2 be causing AGW?

Right now there are pro-AGW scientists working their butts off trying to form some excuse to explain this away. Right now they are trying to say it's bubbles that are confusing scientists into interpreting the data wrong!

Need I remind you that the earth's average global temperature hasn't risen in 17 years now. We are currently in a cooling trend, a trend that was not predicted by the AGW proponents.

 

[marduk]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's talk about VENUS.

Let's talk about how all the human industry on Venus has caused this greenhouse effect and destroyed the planet.

Let's spend hours talking about this, shall we?


FYI: Venus' greenhouse effect was not caused by CO2. Instead, the accepted theory states that Venus had oceans similar to Earth. However, because it is closer to the Sun than the Earth is, it is hotter than the Earth. With time it's oceans evaporated. When water evaporates it turns into water vapor. Water Vapor is the most powerful Greenhouse Gas. It's to blame for 90% of all Global Warming. As more water evaporated, the temperatures rose. A the temperatures rose, even more water evaporated. This led to a run-away greenhouse effect. The water vapor in the atmosphere was then, with time, split into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen escaped into space. Today, Venus is almost bone-dry.

#1 My point is that it doesn't matter what is changing the climate. It's changing. Who gives a damn what % of the effect is us? Why spend our time fighting about it? What matters is what are we going to do about it. It doesn't matter if temperatures are rising because of volcanoes, China, cow farts, or Miley Ray Cyrus. We'd still have to do something about it.

#2 Yup. Think about what a thermal increase would do to a planet that's 73% covered by water.

Again, terrestrial biology has fared far worse in the past and will do so again. The likelihood of a runaway greenhouse effect is very small.

But it wouldn't take much to seriously degrade our tenuous human civilization. Much of North America was an inland sea during the mesozoic era.

Consider what our civilization would look like if North America looked like this, as it did at that time?

How would we deal with human migration? Deserted cities? Tremendous loss of the entire breadbasket of North America? Very little fresh water?

It doesn't matter how much of this is caused by human activity.

If we want to keep our place at the apex of life on this Earth, we will have to shape climate to do so sooner or later.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

#1 My point is that it doesn't matter what is changing the climate. It's changing. Who gives a damn what % of the effect is us? Why spend our time fighting about it? What matters is what are we going to do about it. It doesn't matter if temperatures are rising because of volcanoes, China, cow farts, or Miley Ray Cyrus. We'd still have to do something about it.

#2 Yup. Think about what a thermal increase would do to a planet that's 73% covered by water.

Again, terrestrial biology has fared far worse in the past and will do so again. The likelihood of a runaway greenhouse effect is very small.

But it wouldn't take much to seriously degrade our tenuous human civilization. Much of North America was an inland sea during the mesozoic era.

Consider what our civilization would look like if North America looked like this, as it did at that time?

How would we deal with human migration? Deserted cities? Tremendous loss of the entire breadbasket of North America? Very little fresh water?

It doesn't matter how much of this is caused by human activity.

If we want to keep our place at the apex of life on this Earth, we will have to shape climate to do so sooner or later.

1. We can't do anything about climate change. We aren't technologically advanced enough to control the climate. Stopping human emittance of CO2 would not change anything, assuming CO2 was the driving force behind climate change, even though it's not.

2. The earth's average global temperature hasn't increased in about 17 years now. We are currently in a cooling trend.

3. All that we are able to do is adapt to climate. Believe it or not, we humans have been able to adapt to pretty much everything the Earth has thrown at us so far in our history on the planet. Unless we are faced with a gigantic asteroid impact or the eruption of a super volcano, then not much will change. The greatest threats for us in the relative near future would be the coming Ice Age in about 50,000 years and the eruption of a super volcano in about a million years. Plagues and pandemics can happen at anytime.