Climate deniers are good at smoke and mirror tactics to conceal their lack of science based evidence, its all too typical to start a conversation about global warming and end up no where near a scientific topic.

I have a couple of questions for any global warming deniers I want answered before this conversation gets going.

--Is there a point where atmospheric concentrations of C02 would effect the climate?

yes

long after the point where we would die from it

The next question has to be, what is that point?

PPM?

Then comes the request for your data which informs that opinion.

I am going to go a head and assume as is the case with most deniers that the assignment of the threshold of PPM for carbon is arbitrary and solely based on an emotional response . . that since no data has been forth coming. . . . Its easy to find thousands of papers that back up GW, hundreds that show man made effects, why can so few deniers produce good papers that are not easily torn to shreds academically?

All they seem able to do is much as Mr Knight has done in the other thred and attempts to call into question measurements of other scientists without producing any data to back up said criticisms. OH NOES, Different weather stations didnt agree, OH NOES that means the physics of green house gases and NASA thermal imaging must also be wrong . . . oh wait no it doesn't.

I accept that the earth is warming, the physics is clear, we have more then enough accurate data that backs this up, the forcing are not clear, thus the extent of the coming tragedy is not known.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that anthropogenic climate change itself is a problem.

I do believe that the most often cited culprits are activities we ought to curtail for other reasons, so I rarely disagree with the aims of those who, for example, might seek to reduce "greenhouse gases".

I am convinced that the conversation is muddied by many parties who are not really interested in truth... industry apologists, greenwashers, extremist environmentalists, politicians on all sides.

(linked a review for a book of dubious merit)

The scary part is the forcings.

Many critters of the sea consume many many tons of C02 every year, but if they are killed off for any reason, then there goes one carbon sink, rainforests are being clear cut, there goes another sink, permafrost is melting exposing thousands of acres of peat rich in carbon. The tread is man through risky behavior has set itself up for tragedy, and science is our only hope, but sadly science gets a bad rap from dishonest politically motivated dimwits.

The balance that is struck here on planet earth is one we cannot afford to tip. For me that alone sobers me up, and requires to upmost respect for the research, when I see some lame attempt to try to discredit the research without honest skepticism it makes my blood boil. That goes for both sides, the warmer fear mongering, and the ostrich head in sand deniers.