Michael Coslo wrote:
Okay, then what is the mitigating mechanism for mankind to not have an
effect? We are increasing the percentage of greenhous gases. Why does it
not have an effect?

The Global-Warming/Ice-Age cycle has been primary and we
are 8000 years into the next ice age. If man has any effect
at all, it will be to delay the onslaught of the next ice age.
Indeed, this ice age cycle seems to be somewhat delayed
compared to the previous ones.

Seems that you are asking for proof that man doesn't have
any effect. That's a lot like asking for proof that God
doesn't exist. The onus of proof is upon those who assert
the positive. Nobody has proven that man is or can be the
anywhere near the primary cause of global warming. The
ice-core temperatures prove that the most severe global
warming(s) occurred before man ever existed.

But I don't think that it
follows that man has no effect on the system.

I think you would agree that plants have much more of an
effect than man? Plants love CO2 and produce O2. There
was a time in the past when the oxygen level was double
what it is today and dragonflies had a wingspan equal to
my armspan. Believing that man has a drastic effect on the
present global temperatures is akin to believing that the
earth is the center of the universe, i.e. delusions of
grandeur, e.g. Al Gore.

Now what could that be?

That was a little condescending wasn't it?

It's called a rhetorical question. :-)
I ask a lot of rhetorical questions.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com