It seems to me the essential difference is also a fact,that last time it did, it created mass extinctions.It doesn't seem to have sunk in that the among the differences between now and then is 6.something billion people. But hell, That's alarmist(spit).
Part 2
The Dr appears to be saying in common sense terms, that we should, on solid scientific grounds, stop aggravating the situation now, while we can.

The theory of Anthropomorphic Climate Change (AGW if you must) give us scientific hope of how we might avoid the alarmist consequences.
That is before we *have* to deal with 300 million + hungry, thirsty angry desperate refugees *in our area*.

PS
Currently we have approximately 12 million external refugees world wide and we aren't doing a terrific job coping with them.

Whilst it is true that the World has survived large increases in atmospheric CO2 in the past, it is also true that these events have also coincided with mass extinctions. Unfortunately, there is also a high probability that mankind will be included in the next mass extinction.

The deniers seem to be quite oblivious of the fact that ice is melting all around the globe. As has already been pointed out, it is the remaining ice which is acting as the earth's thermostat and when that is gone we will really know what temperature rise is. We are only just beginning to get a glimpse of it so far.

A good article, wholy lost on the scientifically ignorant, who unfortunately seem to congregate on OLO.

David

What I want to know is how Dr. Glikson can pinpoint so accurately what was happening 250 million years ago, not just to carbon dioxide levels but also to species numbers. So CO2 went up and lots of species died? Are you sure that happened simultaneously? Could it have been delayed by a thousand years? What about a million years? -- after all, we are talking about a long, long timescale here. Could it have happened BEFORE the CO2 level rose? How long before? A thousand years? A million years? And what else was happening over that period? A million years is a long time.

Trying to extrapolate events over a vast time scale like this to what's happening in human lifetimes at the beginning of the 21st century is simply nonsense. It's as specious as saying: 'large mammals died out in the Pleistocene; therefore tall humans will die off next week'. All that Dr Glikson can tell from his graphs is that a lot of species died off at some time within a few million years before or after a CO2 peak. The relevance that has to making AGW-related assumptions and decisions here and now is precisely zero.

Here we go again, another same old, same old, from another scientifically illiterate.

David

David VK3AUU, as one of the “scientifically illiterate” or, as examinator puts it “armchair experts (AEs) who don't understand the nature of scientific theories”, I do believe your scientists.

As a non scientist I have to believe in Jones, Briffa, Wang, Trenbarth, Santer, Pashauri, Harris, Salinger, Mann and Hansen.

I believe them when they admit there is no consensus, that their peer review process is flawed, that they admit including in their last report, 24 (out of 36) non-peer reviewed references, that data is missing from the Russian, Canadian, NZ, Chinese and Australia temperature data sets. I believe their admissions relating to the use of some of the proxy studies.

I believe their admission that their databases and systems are in a “hopeless state” and that they have “invented data”. I believe them when they admit there has been no warming since 1995 and that this is not the warmest period on record.

Your problem David, is that you and others on this thread do not believe these scientists, you do not believe what they have admitted, that makes you “de….r’s, no, sorry, I just can’t bring myself to say the “d” word.

Dr. Glikson should keep his “reasoned, coherent argument” on the pages of OLO, rather than sending it off to the IPCC, that way he might retain a little credibility

dave tanner, VK whatever "there is also a high probability that mankind will be included in the next mass extinction."

What scientific basis is this dire prediction based on? (Extreme Exageration Theory? is this another area of Climate Science?)

Or is it more of the usual warmist disaster propaganda and cherry picked facts rounded up to disaster and doom?

"Change your ways or the world will end", doesn't that sound like some old religious prattle we all thought was quaint when viewed from a different age, or is this current age warmist scientology?

As you say "Here we go again, another same old, same old, from another scientifically illiterate." (mass extinction ooooooooooh!)

You got it right there, though you are in good company here with the other data botherers.

In short, Andy and company are so far off into the world of "Wild Exgeration", you now think it's science - science is based in skepticism and examination of fact, not exageration, not making up your own data and predicting the future, leave that to the clowns and religious nuts .. oh