RJ 17 said:
Well considering the facts that volcanic activity has spewed out far more carbon dioxide than all the cars that have ever existed...
I'm not sure where you got this figure from, but even if this were true, the basic concept is off.
The Earth doesn't give two hoots what the largest source of carbon is, the system cares about the total amount of carbon. Even if the entirety of natural processes contributed 99.9% of the Earth's capabilities to sink CO2, if humans contributed .2% we would still disrupt the system.
As-is, I believe humans contribute roughly 10-20% of the CO2, which is more than enough when the cup was already full.
...and the fact that the planet naturally goes through warming and cooling periods.
It does. Several different types, in fact. You have Malenkovich cycles (~40,000 years as the Earth's orbit around the sun changes), you have natural periods of CO2 accumulation, periods of glacial maximums (which happen for about 10,000 years every 100,000 years) and so on. The problem is that Humans are making the warming cycle happen very, very fast.
It's not giving enough time for environments to find an equilibrium. The last time the warming happened this quickly with these conditions, there was a mass extinction. That's bad for everybody.
For instance, 90% of the top selling drugs are plant-based or were discovered compounds in plants. Good luck trying to find more when 85% of the plants die off.
yeah, I'm feeling pretty safe on my side of the fence. In a case like this, the burden of proof is on the "man-made" side seeing as how we already know that the Earth naturally goes through heating and cooling periods, it's up to them to prove that this time it's our fault, and they simply haven't done that.
It's us. The deniers in the scientific community (most of which don't have degrees related to the topic) make up about 2%.
Plus, it doesn't really matter if it's us or not. The consequences are going to be the same at this rate; mass extinction. The proponents of "it's all a hoax perpetrated by Climatologists" usually use the excuse that it's not man-made to advocate the continuation of our lifestyle and prevent the exploration and development of other sources of fertilizer/agriculture and energy.
Our current style of energy production is unsustainable. If it won't run out within the next few decades, it will within the next two centuries (and that INCLUDES natural gas). It doesn't make sense to continue to consume such large quantities when we could switch to a source that has significant advantages over our current mode; with the one detriment being that people may have to change their habits SLIGHTLY.
I really don't want to get into a political argument about this though, so go ahead and respond with some argument or article or whatever you like, I'll likely ignore it on the basis of "agree to disagree".
There isn't anything to "agree to disagree" about. I guarantee you that you're just under-informed when it comes to the topic. I'm in the most conservative state in the nation, and every single one of my college professors (in a Research 1 institution) have explained in excruciating detail what's going on.
We're talking award-winning PhD's from a state whose government is run by the Church.
OT: People who don't do their research and stick to their beliefs despite overwhelming scientific evidence because it makes them feel safer/better. Complementary/Alternative Medicine, Vitamin Supplements, and anti-Global Warming "evidence" are some of the biggest crocks to gain popularity in the USA (particularly the latter). They are all junk science, and they are all worthless 99% of the time.
)
