Fair enough. Ok, the (long) historical charts show fairly regular cycles of warming and CO2 levels, very much predating the Industrial Revolution. Thus, Man is not responsible for most episodes of Earth's warming. They also show CO2 levels peaking at a quite consistent level--a level we're well above now and which is still rising. So what's cheaper, controlling the release of this pollutant (it's a pollutant only now, thanks to quantity), which joins a long list of other pollutants we control, or a general failure of the world's cereal grain harvest?
Yes, nearly ALL the WORLD'S climatologists, relevant scientists, and science organizations (except those employed by the fossil-fuel interests or looking to sell books to the deniers) are abdicating their intellectual and ethical standards and falsifying data (with amazing coordination !) so they can stay employed? This is one the stupidest things coming from the last-gasp denier crowd. Never mind the whole GW/CO2 thing is fairly obvious and logical to anyone with more than half a brain. Seriously, what do you use to do your critical thinking?
My experience has taught me to follow the money trail... it will corrupt the majority of people's professional opinions these days. There is a big drop from upper middle class govt grant lifestyle to govt handouts... and it can happen with one wrong statement.
It is a non sequitor to say that because climate change can happen without human intervention, that human intervention can't cause climate change. CO2 levels rise every single year, and no, that isn't due to a sudden spate of volcanoes. Given that CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas (after water vapor) I'd say the burden of proof is on those who say we can keep increasing CO2 levels forever without ever causing the planet to get hotter.
The AGW folks are simply interested in massive taxation and socialism and climate is just a means to that end. Clearly the world population isn't buying it and nobody is prepared to stunt the activities of human civilization to placate a few loons. Seeing the hatred oozing from both you and futurecurrents really illustrates the psychosis griping the AGW people. There is absolutely no point to debating the science with you two. I can't be bothered.
Appeal to Experts is a bad philosophical argument. So is ad hominem. That is about all you do btw.. circular reasoning is bad also. We get this shit from the "experts" where the "geological column is calibrated by the strata" and "the strata is calibrated by the geologic column" and that "calibration" [it's not at all a calibration, it's fantasy land actually, calibration is comparison to a known standard] is backed up by measurements with radiological methods [75% of which are tossed out if they don't meet the standards of the fantasy calibration].. we have medical experts that are taught to believe that all healing by supplements and herbs are from the placebo effect [but they prescribe meds that are derived from the same herbs], we have dental experts still putting mercury in our mouths, we have climate change experts using their computer models [of the whole climate, wow, weather computer models don't work for any long term at all but those assholes claim they can model the whole history of the earth].. and so on and on... Why don't you shove it all up your ass sideways so far it makes your shitty little head swim and leave serious stuff to grownups?
"Clearly the world population isn't buying it and nobody is prepared to stunt the activities of human civilization" You're wrong about this, 377. Even oil & gas executives are largely global warming believers now. And mitigation technology is the fastest growing sector worldwide.
So long as we control it without the B.S. carbon tax, I'm all for it. All intellectually honest people know that Gore and his carbon tax buddies are full of baloney. The wealthy will pay for their pollution with the carbon credit scam, and so will the corporate giants, with both groups contributing the lions share of the pollution as they do now. The small business and common working folk will be saddled with most of the regulation and the gain realized in carbon reduction will be minimal. It's a political issue more than anything. If we were actually serious we'd be doing something serious about it. We're not, therefore it's mostly B.S. IMO. Kind of like getting off the ME oil tit. Could have been done decades ago very easily. It wasn't and it won't be. It's just another campaign issue.