Why should Man be a responsible steward of the planet, if "the little effect he poses" is merely deception? Consider the problem in terms of leverage. Mercury for example. There is no amount of mercury we should be releasing into the general environment. Same thing for plutionium. They are "high leverage" pollutants. Is it not possible that CO2 is high leverage?
Honest Question: At what point does plant life begin to suffer from a saturation of CO2? (That I'm still bothering with this is a victory for stupidity)
Why don't you just go and research this yourself? If you had any genuine interest in the facts that is exactly what you should do.
i have ... you're a fool, and your foolishness... I've done more research on that topic, albeit, mostly, involuntarily, lord help me
Quite so, humans are not the sole cause of warming - just the main one. Best estimates of warming since pre-industrial times attribute 75% to humans. Some increase of sun's brightness up until around 1950 probably accounts for most of the rest. There is no evidence of increasing trend in sun since 1950. Currently we are at the bottom an extended 11 year solar cycle but temperatures are amongst the highest ever recorded (2005 hottest year and 2009 second hottest according to NASA surface temperature record). As a matter of fact, the greenhouse effect has been formally proven in this paper by theoretical physicist Arthur Smith: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf Of course this does not tell us how much the earth will warm or the specific causes. There is a mountain of evidence allowing for well informed conclusions to be drawn: These are facts: 1. CO2 is rapidly rising in the atmosphere from about 275 PPM (pre-industrial) to 390PPM now. 2. The change in CO2 is due to humans burning fossil fuels is shown by isotopic studies of atmospheric CO2. 3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 4. The infrared absorption of CO2 has been directly measured by satellite. 5. Feedback effects (increasing water vapor in the atmosphere, reduced albedo due to shrinking ice cover and others) increase the warming effect of CO2. This is known with some certainty by paleoclimate studies which show that the earth could never have emerged from previous ice ages without feedbacks. The degree of warming is of course uncertain, but IPCC puts it between 2C and 5.4C in this century. How much it warms depends very much on what we do about it. 5.4C would be catastrophic and would be uneven with some places warming much more. All this is not new. There is almost 2 centuries of scientific research to back it up. See the free online book "Discovery of Global Warming" http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ There are no better models. If you want to make such claims you need to cite the published research and demonstrate that it has achieved acceptance in the scientific community. It is a myth that scientists are divided - there is virtually no new research being published that disputes AGW.