Belly, the last line of my last post was not about the post but a
suggestion re the problem you had mentioned elsewhere.

Thinker 2; I saw that catalyst program.
Interesting, but does not answer the crux question;
How can CO2 from its present level ever be effective in producing
significant temperature rise ?
It would have to reach 10s of thousands times the present level.
Remember 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc etc

I am afraid Bazz if it reaches hundreds of thousands of times its current levels we will not be here to know about it.
This complex subject needs answers to my posed questions.
IF man plays no part will it be bad, how bad and why?
If it overall will be good how good and why.
If either will it reverse or continue to grow.
Is there any benefit in new clearner fuels or do we look for more oil.
Should we try to stop pollution or not.

Belly,
As you are finding, you will not find answers to the questions you pose in this thread. The entire global scientific community cannot reach consensus, so I don't imagine we will.
Thinker - yes I saw that program also. Yes it does confirm that the climate is indeed changing, but still does not answer Belly's questions. May-be we should all be celebrating the fact that we have successfully averted another ice age.
That is why I try to look at the question more widely and think about what actions we should take as a society.
- Should we be striving to use the earth's resources more efficiently and sustainably? Don't think we will be finding much argument there.
- Does this mean a progression away from burning fossil fuels? Most probably. The only argument is over what period of time. Immediately? 20 years? 100 years? When the resources run out?
-What is the best way to do that? Now there is a good question.

And by the way, YES, every farmer has seen the effects of over-stocking, and poor crop selection and rotation. That is precisely why farmers like that do not survive. We are one of the few industries that is truly connected to the environment around us. Day after day, year after year. We observe subtle changes in the landscape, changes in the quality of our water, soil health, erosion etc....
We have sustainability at the forefront of our minds every day. Otherwise we do not survive. The margins in our industry are too fine for it to be any other way. And these changes happen in smaller periods of time than you might think.

SM,
I am glad to see you bring up the absurd law where by a man with a red flag or a red lantern by night was required to proceed in front of a motor vehicle as a safety measure. Now lad a bit of history for you. Number one, that was a British law and since the first Labour PM of Britain, Ramsey MacDonald, did not take office until 1924 and since all previous British governments had been either conservative or liberal and since that law had long passed away by 1924, therefore we can safely say it was A CONSERVATIVE INNOVATION! Is that it, the great achievement of conservatism 'the man with the red fag' did you think because the flag was red it must have been a communist invention?
Then when a conservative wants to apply the insult of insults they brand you a communist. Lee Rhiannon a "communist hard-liner".
Another bit of rubbish you posted "The liberals are mostly pre selected by the party members unlike labor or the greens." I can speak for The Greens, every candidate, that's every candidate has to be endorsed by a democratic vote of the membership. I don't know about Labor these days, most likely still appointed by the 'back room boys' as for the Liberals most likely you can't run unless you are anointed by Archy Pell. That's how the Mad Monk go the job is it not. If the conservatives win office will Archy Pell be calling the tune, of course he will. A quote from your fearless leader Pope Ratbag "Stop it, you will all go bind." You should push to have that made Liberal policy.

The global scientific has reached consensus on global warning and the cause of it being primarily human activity. Some of those who do not accept it maintain there is not consensus. However, they confuse lack of unanimity with lack of consensus. Consensus and unanimity are not the same thing.

Belly said;
I am afraid Bazz if it reaches hundreds of thousands of times its current levels we will not be here to know about it.

Sorry, Belly, you missed the point of what I said.
There is no way it will reach 10s of thousands ppm.
and that is the point. Therefore, CO2 is now not in a position to push
up temperature significantly.
Now the above is my interpretation of the fact that co2 is exponential
in its effect on temperature.
This is based on the one and only graph that I have seen showing that
the exponential curve of co2 v temperature has rolled over to almost
horizontal.
The x axis was co2 concentration and the y xasis was temperature.
If the temperature is still rising it MUST be something other than CO2.