See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -" Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact. In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false."
These 2 states are at great contradiction. You guys are so full of them. THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.
To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar. I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world:
The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpgThe computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.))
So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong. Roughly, but close enough.
This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world.
As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death. It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be. A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days.
https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/At one point you said this is all "proven". Previously you said it was rare for anyone to know anything. Which is it? YOu basically give credibility to the paper I posted. You guys have huge cognitive biases because of your political views which unfortunately prevent you from looking at things logically. You can look all around and see direct evidence of the earth warming at a rate far greater than anything in man's history. Maybe not in your backyard... but.. it doesn't take much.
