A few fanatics?
There are Muslim terrorist attacks practically every day.
There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet. If each of these would commit one terrorist attack once in their lifetime, there would be about 60000 attacks per day - a bit less than 1 per second.
So in the battle between a Physicist and a Windows, MCSE, I'll go with the Physicist.
Antarctic ice core records confirm the Greenland results. Yeah, just two points, but points rather far apart, so it at least not a localized phenomenon.
I'd love to see your sources for simultaneous temperature changes by 7 degree C in 40 years in both Greenland and the Antarctic. I'm not aware of these, but I certainly may have missed them.
Anyway, what is it that you're trying to argue? That rapid climate change cannot possibly happen without human intervention? Please see my second point, about why anthropogenesis or the lack thereof is irrelevant.
I'm arguing that our best evidence is that the current episode of climate change is likely unprecedented, and that it is largely anthropogenic. I'm sure that the Chicxulub impactor also had a massive (if different) influence on climate, but I'd like to get through this warming episode without the predominant life form taking a major hit.
Climate change is occurring. We don't want it do. We must do something about it. The cause of the change really doesn't matter, except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution... but it's obvious that merely reducing carbon output is *not* going to be enough, so the solution to which it points us is insufficient. We must do more.
I'd certainly rather stop messing with a critical system that we only partially understand than to try to actively mess with it. Biosphere 2 should tell us that it is not easy to actively control an ecosystem. Especially if we don't seem to agree on the cause of the change in the first place - your "except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution" is not a trivial aside.
First of all, probably unlike you, I actually have a degree in physics, with minors in math and chemistry. The math associated with thermodynamics is among the most complex that mankind attempts. The real world is almost never linear and straightforward. The "basic greenhouse effect" is laughably simplified compared to what actually happens in the atmosphere. If your assertion were true, the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years would show CO2 and temperatures in lockstep. It does not. Not even close. What you are saying is that there exists a massive non-linear partial differential equation that determines how hot it will be tomorrow, and the only driving factor we need concern ourselves with is the concentration of a trace gas that responds to the same wavelengths of radiation as water vapor. Only you can't show me the equation and want me to take your assertion on faith. This does not even pass the laugh test.
I'd suggest you don't try to pull academic rank on me - for all you know, I could be a dog. Nothing of what you said supports your original statement, namely that our idea that CO2 causes higher temperature is based on correlation. It's not. It's based on theory, and we now find that the observations correlate well (if not perfectly) with the theory. I don't know why you get the idea I would claim that "the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years would show CO2 and temperatures in lockstep" - no-where have I said or suggested that. By that argument I could claim that "bullets never kill people, otherwise there would be no dead before the invention of guns". Especially over hundreds of millions of years we have a thinks like different continental configurations, differences in Earth orbit, and even an significant increase in the luminosity of the sun, all of which contribute their own long-term trends. That said, we do find a general correlation between warmer temperatures and CO2 in the geological record - again, not a perfect one, but, as you say, the world is complex. "The math associated with thermodynamics is among the most complex that mankind attempts. The real world is almost never linear and straightforward" - and yet, we send people to prison based on the speed with wich a body cools and the path a bullet takes. We never have perfect information, but that does not mean that we do not have good information.
Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Actually, your point is half false, and half irrelevant.
Greenland ice core records show that the planet has, in relatively recent history (geologically), seen much faster temperature changes. Up to a 7C rise in 40 years, IIRC, and without any obvious cause. That's the false part.
Greenland ice core records show changes in the temperature in, well, Greenland, and really only in some very few spots we sample in Greenland. "The planet" is about 235 times larger than Greenland (by surface area), To visualise this:
Can you even spot Greenland (the "g")? I find it somewhat interesting that the same people who complain about insufficient coverage with weather stations or proxy samples used in the standard climate and temperature reconstructions that show global warming are happy to make wild suggestions about climate based on very few and limited samples if those support their denial. As e.g. "Pluto is warming! It's the sun!" - based on two (2) very indirect measurements of local density of Pluto's atmosphere during transits of Pluto in front of stars. No, not measurements of temperature, just of local atmospheric density...
Does that mean we are all going to die if we don't elect more democrats?
Not the point. You don't get to ignore reality because it has implications that seem inconvenient to some political positions, and or some entrenched interests. There are plenty of free market approaches to manage pollution, as long as you are willing to grow out of the inane assumption that a) the capacity of the world is infinite and b) you have a natural right to dump your pollution onto the rest of us.
Their "theory" seems to be that if it is indeed getting hotter (note there is no consensus on this point), the only possible explanation is CO2 from human activity.
Counterfactual nonsense. Arrhenius gave a first theoretical treatment back around 1896, and a reasonable quantitative analysis in 1908, long before we could measure an effect. The basic physical mechanisms are well understood and can be and have been demonstrated in the laboratory. Of course, Earth is a large and complex system, so there are confounding factors. But the claim that the idea of causation is due to the observed correlation is plain wrong. The basic greenhouse effect and first-order feedbacks (e.g. ice/albedo and absolute humidity) can be described and modelled very well, mostly from first principles. If you think there is no causal effect, you would need to explain why basic physics is wrong. Yes, birds fly, and humans can organise a room. The first does not disprove gravity, and the second does not disprove the second law of thermodynamics....
If someone openly renounces their American citizenship in a propaganda video made by/with/for terrorists, and are only still a citizen because they won't fill out the paperwork to formally renounce it... Yeah, the military can kill 'em and I won't be sorry.
That's called "giving aid and comfort to America's enemies" and his own video is/was prima facie proof of it.
It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Global warming(and cooling) have been going on for millions if not billions of years. So what's all the hubub bub.
People have died since there are people. Why should we try to solve this particular murder?
A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.