For those who don't believe that the level of co2 entering our atmosphere has a direct affect, or who believe that the effect is insignificant (and yes I've heard the volcano argument) look into ocean acidification. The issue of this being an adaptable planet and all of its inhabitants having to deal with that is valid to a point, but at what point is the loss of species diversity acceptable, and when does it cease to be so? If the whole planet were covered with high human load urban area, roaches, rats, raccoons, and other species that do well in highly populated areas would still survive, but is that enough diversity for us? Obviously the philosophical question of whether any animal is really necessary could be discussed for days on end, but I'm not really grasping this concept of acceptable loss. We know for a fact how carbon dioxide works to trap heat, so why is it so hard to follow that increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere leads to an increased amount of heat trapped. Granted there are natural fluctuations that must be accounted for, but anyone attributing all the changes to one camp or the other are probably more concerned with politics than anything else.
opcorn:
