Thank-you. I appreciate your response.Certainly happy to show why I think you are probably wrong.
You believe that the evidence that past climate changes have occurred demonstrates that the current one (if we can agree there is one currently taking place) is occurring on the same basis, i.e. non Anthropogenic reasons.
I would say that that reasoning ignores that the previous climate changes occurred without the humans as part of its "equation". The current environment has had to endure the impact of humans somehow.
So the current climate has an additional element in the equation that is incomparable to previous climate changes. So to say because we had previous ones before, explain the current one speaks to ignoring the potential impact humans have.
My understanding is humans have had an effect and the effect is beginning to be understood and there is research to demonstrate that the effect has caused some changes.
I do think it is at a rate less than what some of the reports say. I think the change is more a mid-term than a short term event (i.e. 50 years as apposed to 10).
However, I can't see your critique of my reasoning, which would at a minimum entail a statement of my major and minor premises and some exposition of the alleged errors in logic (such as unwarranted assumptions, identity confusions, affirming the consequent, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, post hoc causality, begging the question, and so on.)
Rather, you seem to argue the pros and cons of AGW itself. Which I'm quite happy to do, though it's not what I thought you meant when you said my reasoning is faulty. Perhaps you mean that you disagree with my views for reasons you regard as valid, and that therefore my own views are invalid or faulty? That's something else.
Before we get to the substantive issue ad rem, let me just clarify one thing:
In Post 47 above I said: "But I'm unconvinced that this change is anthropogenic. As is the case in 100% of all previous climate shifts, the odds are rather high that this current one, too, is natural. I strongly suspect that there's pretty much buggerall we as a species can do about it, other than adapt or die."
Firstly, that was never intended to be some closely reasoned argument. It is simply a forum statement of several related by not logically connected remarks. As are most posts and comments by most people on most forums, and also in this thread.
In context, the "odds" (ie probability) refers not to the probability obtaining in nature (ie extra-mental reality), but to the relative weighting we ought to assign to our selection of particular causal accounts of an observed phenomenon (in this case, planetary warming).
My meaning, to spell it out is: We can say with a high degree of certainty that all past climate changes - of which there are several, including in anthropocene periods into recorded history - were not caused by humans. Since we are now experiencing what an increasing number of observers believe to be the early stages of yet another climate shift, it is both logical and prudent to hypothesise in the first place that the same non-anthropological causes that gave rise to previous shifts might with high probability also now be at work in this present shift. In other words, the "odds" refers to the relative weightings we should assign to the various competing hypotheses attempting a causal account of the present and speculated future change.
(How some infer that I cling to the ludicrous notion that the "odds" are somehow invested in nature's operations is beyond me. The "odds" refer to the relative probability prudentially assigned by human consciousness to the likelihood of any particular hypothesis comporting with phenomena as observed and interpreted by the human intellect.)
With that out of the way, let me turn to the substance of your quibble. You make several points.
In the first part, you aver (along with a great many scientists) that there are now new circumstances ("an additional element") that make this current change different from previous ones.
I have no quibble with that in principle. There are indeed many circumstances now that are different from past changes. I can think of a dozen or two.
Of course one will have to examine as many of these circumstances as we can discern, and then make an assessment of their real-world impact as best as we can determine given the obvious limitations.
Implicit in your argument is that these new circumstances in some way account for the current change such that, were these new circumstances not present, we would not be experiencing a change in climate.
Though you do not attempt to address that implicit assumption (one necessary for your argument to work), I raise my hand and say "that's an unsupported claim" - one that must be substantiated for the rest of the argument to hang together.
So, it seems I might have to wait for an exposition of my faulty reasoning, and we should return to a discussion about the merits of various argument for an against AGW and what if anything we ought or can do about it.
I'm off to get fish & chips, and thereafter spend an evening with family and friends. Catch you later.