Please show a chart going back several hundred thousand years with a CO2 rate of increase comparable to the present.
I just did. Aren't you paying attention? But even if I hadn't, I'm not the one saying there's a global warming problem. The burden of proof isn't on me.
The burden of proof is not on me, either, that's what we pay professionals for. That chart's scale is too long to comparatively judge rate of increase of CO2, though the current level is quite "interesting".
This isn't about the burden of proof, this isn't a silly debate. This discussion reminds me of the old tobacco industry's arguments about smoking not being harmful. This is serious if it's possible man made CO2 emissions adversely affect the climate then it is imperative we study this and consider the implications and ask what are the risks and what can or should we do about it, something that the religious anti science people don't seem to be able to do or even think about. The lack of serious though from those on the far right is truly puzzling. You have moments of clarity Tao and shouldn't be with them. This isn't a conservative / liberal issue, and if it was the conservative policy would have to be "conservative" in our actions.
Never in the past was the CO2 levels raised 40% in two hundred years. That's a blink of an eye. So looking at past climate is of limited value with regards to understanding the current situation and is an irrelevant deflection. Man is releasing 9 billion tons of carbon into the air every year. That has never happened before. The forcing effect of CO2 is the atmosphere is fairly well established in terms of watts per square meter. We know this factor and what that spike on the right side means.
The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim to be true. You can pretend otherwise, but that's the way it is. If I say "the earth will explode in 2021" I'd better have credible backup to prove why, or I'm just a nut. As for the interesting spike, I agree. It's certainly interesting. Either temperature will follow suit (if the spike in CO2 is a leading indicator and there is causality) or it won't. If it doesn't, I think we'll safely be able to put the climate change crap to bed. Regardless, the fluctuations occurring in temperature for the last few decades is irrelevant in the term of the life of the earth.
This isn't comparable to smoking. You can easily link cancer and other lung disease to smoking. There's irrefutable proof. There may one day be irrefutable proof to global warming from man made cause. But thus far, I've not seen it. That being said, it would be foolish to think man has no impact on his environment - climate or otherwise. The question is merely at what point that impact becomes noticed and where it manifests.
You're right. I shouldn't have used the word "crap". I apologize. I meant it in terms of "all this stuff about climate change". I don't have my mind made up, as I lack evidence to prove anything pro-climate change folks are claiming is real (other than their claims). But I recognize that humans have to be having some impact on the planet they live in (logically speaking). There's just no information anyone is showing that is any more than speculation - including what you posted.