Yes, man caused the creation of unsourced, uncited graphs with unlabeled lines on them. I know it wasn't dolphins because they always cite their sources and label their plot lines.
The question about CO2 and food has to focused a bit. Is accumulating CO2 and heat good for grain, because that's the plant type billions need. The answer, imho, is no, they are not good for grain. Arable land and water (and fertilizer, lots and lots of fertilizer) is what grain needs. I suspect grain belts will retreat from the equator with desertification, and advance towards the poles with warming. Unfortunately, the circumference of the Earth is smaller towards the poles. Overall, I think warming will reduce the amount of arable land.
Most likely. There is also the issue of regional climate shifts that may be a lot stronger than average. eg desertification of SW USA, SE Australia etc etc. High CO2 levels also result in grains with lower protein content. It's really very complex - something that escapes the "CO2 is plant food" clowns.
Besides being rather ill mannered, your powers of observation are rather lacking. If you will observe the green line you should notice that it took ~ 20,000 years for CO2 to rise from it's most recent minimum of 200 ppm to 280 ppm. Since it reached the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm it has risen to ~390 ppm in less than 200 years and at increasing rate of emissions will probably reach 500 ppm or more by 2050. And that is way higher than the max of ~280 ppm for the 400,000 years shown on that chart. Now that does not look cyclical at all. Furthermore, from the chart, during the rise from 200 ppm to 280 ppm, temperature increased by 8C. We had better hope that climate is not that sensitive to CO2 as it would be enough to destroy civilization.
You're a dumbass just like your buddy littledaviedumbass. My point with the graph was that regular cycles have been occurring long before man had any ability to impact them. YOUR powers of observation are lacking because what you're claiming is not observable from the graph I posted. It's a conclusion you jumped to by jumping from ice core measurements to atmospheric measurements and ASSuming they're comparable, as do most other global warming kooks. They're not. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
It is labeled and as for the source, anyone who knows anything about global warming (on both sides of the debate) would immediately recognize it as data from the Vostok ice core.
I see, I should have "immediately recognized it" as measurements coming from a single ice-core, and I need to ignore the fact that there are three lines and three different y-axis labels (which is a big no-no in statistics, as anyone familiar with statistics would recognize), and that we are to extrapolate globally from this single ice-core. But okay, I'll play along. First, off, you'll note that according to this graph for temperature increases, the temperature follows CO2 which contradicts previous posts in this thread. Secondly, as someone has already sagely pointed out, it does not appear to be cyclical at the end. Thirdly, proxy data such as this cannot overturn the actual laser absorption spectroscopy of a CO2 molecule which shows in the graph I provided that it absorbs heat. More molecules means more heat. Fourthly, even if you're right that there are other factors at play you have to successfully argue that adding a known heat absorption quantity to the atmosphere will not exacerbate the situation. In other words, if you're right and the planet is warming on its own you need to argue why we should be fine with causing additional warming. If you can't address each of these four points please do not bother responding.
Bullshit. The ice core CO2 levels at Taylor Dome match up remarkably well with direct atmospheric CO2 measurements: Atmospheric and ice core measurements are directly comparable, and you are yet again taking nonsense.
You're confused again. First, there's nothing wrong with multiple y-axis labels if they're STACKED. This OTOH is an example of how not to put more than one y-axis scale on the same chart: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/fun-with-the-y-axis/ As for your remaining four points: 1) Actually the chart shows just the opposite. Try again. 2) It doesn't appear to be cyclical? See an eye doctor (or a psychiatrist). That's as ridiculous as your claim that you're extremely fiscally conservative. 3) Who said it did? 4) There absolutely are "other factors at play" than man or past cycles wouldn't have happened. If you can't even admit this you have an even bigger problem than I'd thought. The question is, how much are we influencing those other factors?