Please cite for me the case where CO2 has been added to the atmosphere as rapidly as we are doing. Sure, you can go back to the Permian or whatever, but what was the result? Rapid warming (and mass extinction)!
Look at La Chatelier's principle as an illustration. When you press on a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium point moves. Add heat, and you'll get higher CO2 concentrations. But add CO2, and the equilibrium results in a higher temperature.
In recent geologic times, we've had perturbations in temperature which has resulted in CO2 increases that followed. Of course they follow, as they can't predict the change! But if CO2 concentrations increase, we should expect the temperature to follow.
Where have I quoted the IPCC? Especially "religiously". Lying about me is not kosher and is rude.
The Mauna Loa graph shows increases occurring. Are you claiming that the annual increase in CO2 is wholly from natural sources?!?!
If you aren't, then it's obviously a significant factor in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's fact, not opinion.
I'm going to ask you for a citation of that spurious claim about volcanic contributions (yes, you are not being fact based, citing that). If a supervolcano contributes that much, then it's a rare enough event that it's far less than the bulk contributions from humans over time. On average, volcanoes contribute far less than humans.
Let's see. That's your opinion, not fact.
Please cite this "lot of" "pejorative and hostile" terms that I used unnecessarily.
Seriously, go ahead and list that "lot of" you are claiming.
Frankly, you make accusations about me that are unfounded, and I find that more hostile than anything I wrote.
If you think that "infinitely larger" is "miniscule", then I don't know what I can do to explain it any clearer.
Try this...
100% of the contribution in excess of equilibrium is caused by humans, and that amount is several billion tons that would not otherwise be there. That amount is several percent of the annual amount that is emitted and otherwise reabsorbed by natural system, resulting in a very measurable and statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Many people would find it difficult to stretch a description of such a contribution as "miniscule".
Although I can follow your ramblings, know why you are wrong, could engage and defeat you point-by-point, most of the people reading here likely haven't had the time nor the inclination to study these matters sufficiently to follow along readily. I am not posting here for your benefit or mine, but primarily for theirs. So I decline your invitation to "debate" intricate technical absurdities, regardless of the excruciatingly-rescripted, effusive tangential acrobatics you perform, believing that somehow they prove a point by their sheer magnitude and depth of confusion.
Clearly you are hypnotized by jargon and "credentialism" which is Suppressing your own ability to be connected to Reality. I sense that there is nothing that I or anyone else could possibly say or offer in refutation that would convince you to change your mind because for each counterpoint offered, you do not ADDRESS THE CENTRAL POINT but launch into another tangent.
I am reminded of the scientists who worked out every detail of the Mars mission in the most exquisite technical detail, except that they forgot to convert miles to kilometers!!! I don't suppose you worked on that mission did you, sieur?
You are lost in endless rehashing of technical minutiae which avoids the central absurdity contained in the belief that the 0.02% (or much less!) of the inert trace gas CO2 which human beings contribute to the total atmosphere can somehow dominate over the effects of the total energy contributed by all of the other natural elements of the geophysical system which mediates average climatic temperature.
I listed those natural elements above in my initial post and you rudely dismissed ALL OF THAT without refuting ANY of the central information (which was wise because it was all factual)!!! If you are so sure it is wrong THEN POST THE REFUTING FACTS (I extracted the quoted volcano information from Wikipedia for instance, so refute THEM if you like). It's all there for you to see for yourself. I am not your servant so I will not retrieve the information for you. It is after all YOU sir, who insists that I am mistaken, and therefore the onus is rightfully on YOU to provide refuting facts, not mine to assist you.
There is no way in a gross physical sense of total energy in a physical geographical system, that a MINUSCULE fractional amount of energy (likely in thousandths of a percent) can dominate over the effects of the other 99.999 % of the total energy. You propose that a spit-wad hurled at a freight train will derail it.
That you and others who try to distract with endless circumambulations around that point demonstrate that you are either deliberately trying to obfuscate with obscure technical digressions (that you either refuse or are unable to consolidate into meaningful synthesis of plain speaking) or else have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the most elementary basics of large geophysical systems. I am inclined to believe it is the former since you seem to have some intellect. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with convoluted, overly-technical, digressive BS,eh?
An effective but hardly original stratagem.
Now, this is where most AGW fanatics whose invitation to engage in endless wild goose chases away from glaringly obvious defects in their basic premises has been declined usually pull out "credentials" and hurl self-pitying, infantile vituperations condemning the one(s) who disagree with them as inferior intellectually or morally and/or accuse them of being "purchased" by oil companies and other nefarious persons who want to destroy the world by denying AGW's horrible Earth destroying danger to the entire world.
I will state this a second time, a refusal to speak in plain terms is evidence that you are either unable or unwilling to make any sort of comprehensive refutation of any of the BASIC fundamental points I or any other posters have raised, but instead digress into endless, largely meaningless tangential excursions into grotesque, baroque jargon-enamored nonsense.
Speak plainly or stop posting. Nobody here is in any mood to play along with your attempt to shift the discussion to endless pointless, meandering verbosity.
Hitting my stopwatch and awaiting your substantive response NOW...and do try to keep it under 1000 words this time if you are capable of that.*
* An unwillingness or inability of people to speak in plain terms without a lot of technical jargon is a red flag to most normal people. Pretend that you are speaking to a board of directors this time, and that they expect you to speak in plain terms and to SUMMARIZE technical arguments so that non-technical people in the room can understand your central points. Failure or refusal to do that by the way, in board rooms and political seats of power, generally results in the principle being told that their services are no longer needed.