No Mr. futurecurrents, the scientific method dismisses "experts" and "consensus." I did look at your chart. It covers 1000 years which seems long to humans but earth doesn't care about our feelings. That's nothing on a geological timescale as this chart shows, where you can see far greater CO2 and temperature variations due to natural causes. But let's assume we could magically stop all anthropogenic carbon emissions, "magic" CO2 concentrations back from 408 ppm to the pre-Industrial Revolution level of about 280 ppm, and then lose our magic powers. Do you really think humans can control earth's climate and keep it where it is and that natural forces won't inevitably overwhelm our puny efforts? Do you really believe earth is so fragile and CO2 is so powerful that a few hundred additional parts per million will render the planet uninhabitable and destroy us?
"Do you really believe earth is so fragile and CO2 is so powerful that a few hundred additional parts per million will render the planet uninhabitable and destroy us?" No, and it is this kind of hyperbole that ruins rational arguments. It's a straw man. All of the world's science is not saying that. They say things like this.. American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." and this American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." And that chart is the right scale to show man's influence on temps. The last thousand years are the most reliably reproduced by proxies. Further back than that the resolution decreases. This is NOT about politics. It's about the future habitablity of the planet, for all living things.
It is arguably about religion among some GOPers, who are antsy about getting the Rapture thing underway.
Sorry Mr. futurecurrents, but it's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone like you who summarily dismisses the scientific method. You disparaged psychology but I could almost surely come up with a model more predictive of your behavior than most climatologists' models are of surface temperature increases. All I'd have to do is imagine a parrot with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Tourette's. My hyperbole? Then what did you mean a few pages ago when you wrote: "one of the biggest threats to all life on earth"? What about the IPCC's hyperbole? Are they "experts"? Because I just took a look at their AR5 and it's a joke. Not only do they admit their models are highly subjective: "The data are seldom sufficient to allow direct estimation of probabilities of a given outcome; therefore, expert judgment using specific criteria...is used to integrate the diverse information sources relating to the severity of consequences and the likelihood of occurrence into a risk evaluation, considering exposure and vulnerability in the context of specific hazards." But under their "stringent mitigation" scenario (RCP2.6), global average surface temperatures are actually predicted to go down out to 2300, while the "very high GHG emissions" scenario (RCP8.5) has temps increasing by up to 12 degrees C by 2300. Think Twilight Zone episode when the painting melted! If only we follow their recommendations and stringently mitigate by redistributing wealth on a massive scale, we can control the climate and save the planet! Nope. Not about politics at all. Only about the future habitability of the planet. Where do I sign up? https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ Bottom line: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (Act 1, Scene 5)
Ok, you never answered me, so then you don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is what you're saying. And that would be wrong. It's simple. Either CO2 is greenhouse gas that has gone up 40% or it isn't. If it has, how could that NOT result in warming? How could it not get worse? And no, it is certainly not hyperbole to say that manmade climate change is one of biggest threats to life on earth. Oh wait, that last quote is a clue. Are you an ignorant deluded evangelical religious Jeezum nut waiting for the rapture? If so, nevermind. No getting through that kind of crazy. Speaking about psychopathology!! lol
Of course CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" Mr. futurecurrents, for the simple reason that it absorbs outgoing longwave radiation. I never claimed otherwise, nor have I said it's not a concern. But it's not nearly as elementary as you make it out to be. Also of concern is the subjectivity of climatologists' models and the politicization of climatology (a pernicious combination), both of which I've provided evidence of in my last post and which you've apparently decided to ignore. But that's OK, I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to be amused and you rarely disappoint. Especially with lines like: "Are you an ignorant deluded evangelical religious Jeezum nut waiting for the rapture?" Bravo, Mr. futurecurrents, bravo! Your moonbattery is spectacle to behold!
On the plus side, Mr. Tom, Kathy Griffin's TDS makes her uniquely qualified to star in a remake of the 1922 horror film, Nosferatu. Yet another facet of the entertainment value of Trump Derangement Syndrome.