[cameldrv]

> The up/down cycle, over the last 800K years has been somewhere in the range of 50K up and 100K down for a 100ppm change. Why did it go up when humanity wasn't even around (or was a rounding error)?

My point is that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 stayed within a 100ppm range. Then in 70 years it shot up 140ppm, consistently, year after year, tightly correlated with fossil fuel usage. That is way outside the the historical record.

Anyhow yes of course there are natural forces that cause variation, and likewise artificial forces. In this case the artificial forces (specifically fossil fuel burning, but also others) are very obviously dominating.

Your problem is that someone has told you to think that everyone is indoctrinated, and therefore you won't listen to really basic logic.

[robomartin]

Do you understand what I am saying?

Maybe you don't. No, not because you are not intelligent. I believe you are. Maybe even smarter than me (which isn't hard at all).

Maybe I haven't done a good job of explaining my position. I don't think that's the case, yet, it is perplexing to see someone post replies about things I did not say at all.

So, in the interest of constructive conversation, I'll offer you this:

Ask me questions on this subject and I'll answer them. Short simple questions, not entire paragraphs of questions. No, not "What's the meaning of life?" type questions. Questions that might help you understand my position. Understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.

I am happy to have a conversation with you on that basis. I assure you I am not a climate change denier. I am also not one of those people who thinks it was natural to get to over 400 ppm. Not the case. We did it. Absolutely. And I have said this much in this thread. This is why I am perplexed by your comments. It's like you are replying to a third person. You are finding things I did not say and replying to those things. I don't understand.

Ask away. Or don't. Your choice.