So if you have a foot in more than one discipline, good for you.

I'm under the impression that many astrophysicists downplay the CO2-temperature link and put much faith in the sun/cosmic ray link. [etc]

As I wrote previously, the number that is the answer to the sensitivity question is in my opinion less interesting scientifically than the reasons for that number.

So even if the probability distribution actually nails it, we don't necessarily know the reasons. If you try to model something and it turns out that however you make the models, you get basically the same number out, then, yes, you get a really convincing probability distribution, but you will still have absolutely no clue what's going on in the physical world, since even false causes give the same result and you can't know that you picked the right model. [etc]

The geological aspect is interesting. There absolutely must be a beautiful thermostat. Otherwise we wouldn't have been around.

Even if there is Climate Change, in a Darwinian sense this is good as it forces adaptation = evolution.

HarbingerDawn, you worry too much. Global Warming in my opinion is similar to the quote in my signature. Even if there is Climate Change, in a Darwinian sense this is good as it forces adaptation = evolution.

earth expansion.

I think animals may also become smarter, with man being the #1 predator of most large species, those in the wild will eventually adapt to avoiding traps and snares, fish in the ocean will develop a higher conciousness to avoid fishing nets and baited hooks.

I don't think what man is doing to the world is wrong, he is just following his natural instinct with is the same for all life.

As long as the changes are slow and incremental

man will adapt to the changes and be better for it along with other life.

sudden dinosaur earth expansion.

Well regardless, all the carbon that was deposited under earth was once on the surface and was deposited beneath the surface by life.

An argument can be made if man did not come along and redeposit the carbon back into the atmosphere, all life surface life would eventually die due to carbon starvation.

Really? I find that rather surprising.

Remember: although it is very difficult, we can disentangle and test each of the components that goes into climate sensitivity,

It boils down to this: are humans altering the climate? Yes. Could this potentially have very negative consequences on human societies?

The argument is simply that it will cause a lot of trouble and hardship that we don't need

Coal, Oil, Gas is wildly believed to be the deposited remains of organisms, eg fossil fuels. Plants extract carbon from the atmosphere, deposit it in their trunks, sometimes they become burred underground. Same with animals, animals consume carbohydrates, fats/oils and proteins from plants which is used to build their bodies. Generally for the carbon to be burred underground, a sediment layer need to first be deposited over them or they fall into a swamp.

Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs. Changes that put carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer temperatures on Earth.

In regards to the animal "intelligence boom", I have not observed it, but it is something I think is reasonable to assume will happen over time.

Regardless some percentage of the carbon cycle gets trapped underground every year. If it didn't, we would not have any fossil fuel reserves.

Except the fossil fuel reserves were mainly created during the Carboniferous, when much of the planet was a swamp and bacteria that could digest the newly-evolved wooden stems of plants hadn't evolved yet, causing lots and lots of anaerobic decomposition.

Then the argument should be that this is for the humans, our civilization, not for the polar bears, coral reefs or whatever. That was my point.

I am undecided on this, I think the abiotic origin of carbon fuels also has merit. All mainstream climate scientists believe in the biological origin of carbon fuels thou.

I don't think what man is doing to the world is wrong, he is just following his natural instinct with is the same for all life.

Your philosophy seems to be, "if it happens, then it's fine". I find this troubling.